Uttar Pradesh 4 2014

!""
#" $$%"
#"
&'(

)

*
+ "
*
The Report has been laid on the table of the State Legislature Assembly on 01-07-2014

Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India
(Economic Sector-Non-Public Sector Undertakings)
for the year ended 31 March 2013
Government of Uttar Pradesh

Report No. 4 of 2014
Table of contents
Particulars
Reference to
Paragraph (s) Page (s)
iii
Preface
Chapter-I
Introduction
About this Report
Auditee profile
Authority for audit
Organisational structure of the office of the Accountant General
(Economic and Revenue Sector), Uttar Pradesh
Planning and conduct of Audit
Recoveries at the instance of Audit
Significant Audit Observations
Responsiveness of Government to Audit
Chapter-II
Review of the performance of Compensatory Afforestation in Uttar
Pradesh
Executive Summary
Introduction
Audit Objectives
Audit Criteria
Scope of Audit and Audit Methodology
Audit Findings
Compensatory Afforestation Fund of the State
Diversion of forest land and Compensatory Afforestation
Collection of Compensatory Afforestation Funds
Utilisation of Compensatory Afforestation Funds
Monitoring Mechanism
Status of Accounts and Audit of State CAMPA
Conclusion
Recommendations
Review of Construction of Memorials
Executive Summary
Introduction
Audit Objectives
Audit scope and methodology
Audit criteria
Audit findings
Financial Management
Planning
Execution of the projects
Environment related issues
Monitoring and evaluation
Conclusion
Recommendations
Chapter-III
Compliance Audit
Forest Department
Short recovery of transit fee
Loss due to non-sale of roots of the trees
Short levy of royalty due to delay in prescription of volume factor
Infrastructure and Industrial Development Department
Construction of Yamuna Expressway
i
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1-5
1
1-2
2
2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2
3
3-4
4-5
2.1
7-22
-2.1.1-2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7-2.1.28
2.1.8
2.1.9-2.1.12
2.1.13-2.1.19
2.1.20-2.1.25
2.1.26 to 2.1.27
2.1.28
2.1.29
2.1.30
2.2
-2.2.1-2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7-2.2.40
2.2.8-2.2.12
2.2.13-2.2.17
2.2.18-2.2.37
2.2.38-2.2.39
2.2.40
2.2.41
2.2.42
7-8
8-10
10
10
10-11
11-21
11
11-13
13-17
17-20
20-21
21
21
21-22
23-52
23-24
24-26
26
26-27
27
27-51
27-30
30-33
33-48
48-51
51
51
51-52
53-69
3.1
3.2
3.3
53-54
54-55
55-56
3.4
56-65
Particulars
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Reference to
Paragraph (s) Page (s)
Chapter-III
Housing and Urban Planning Department
Non-deduction of Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess
Systemic failure to ensure compliance of Government Orders
Appendices
Statement showing details of outstanding Inspection Reports and
paragraphs
Statement showing details of amount collected by the Divisions
Statement showing delay in remittance of funds by the Divisions to UP
State CAMPA
Statement showing delay in remittance of funds by UP State CAMPA to
Ad-hoc CAMPA
Statement showing details of amount of Compensatory Afforestation
utilised by Awadh Forest Division without approval of Annual Plan of
Operations
Statement showing cost of land equivalent to 10 meter strip
Statement showing excess recovery of Net Present Value
Statement showing allocation of funds without linkage to funds collected
Statement showing Department wise sanctioned cost and Executing
Agency wise allocation of funds
Statement showing receipt and sanctions of Estimates by the PFAD/EFC
Statement showing excess payment to contractors due to non-observance
of rates approved by the EA
Statement showing details of excess expenditure due to undue favour to
contractors
Statement showing excess expenditure due to variation in rates of purchase
of plants
Statement showing details of excess VAT paid
Statement showing details of consultancy agreements entered by the EA,
agreed fee and payment thereon
Statement showing excess payment to consultants on repetitive works
Statement showing dismantling of structures and expenditure incurred
thereon
Statement showing deficiencies noticed in analysis of rates done by the EA
Statement showing rates approved by the EA vis--vis rates analysed by
audit for various items of stone works
Statement showing excess expenditure incurred due to finalisation of
higher rates
Statement showing excess expenditure due to non-differentiation in the
rates of different features
Statement showing extra expenditure incurred due payment to BPRIP at
rates higher than approved by the EA
Statement showing excess expenditure due to non-execution of work at
lower rates
Statement showing variations in the prices of a few plants
Statement showing details of the committees formed for supervision and
monitoring
Statement showing short recovery of transit fee during the period 2005-06
to 2007-08
Statement showing short levy of royalty on eucalyptus trees
Statement showing short deduction of Cess
Glossary of abbreviations
ii
3.5
3.6
66-67
67-69
1.8.2
71
2.1.13
2.1.15
72
73
2.1.15
74
2.1.16
75
2.1.18
2.1.19
2.1.21
2.2.3
76
77
78
79
2.2.9
2.2.11
80
81
2.2.11
82
2.2.11
83
2.2.12
2.2.13 and
2.2.14
2.2.14
2.2.19
84
85
2.2.21
2.2.21
88-89
90
2.2.21
91-93
2.2.22
94
2.2.31
95
2.2.31
96
2.2.33
2.2.40
97
98
3.1
99
3.3
3.5
--
100-101
102
103-104
86
87
Preface
This Report for the year ended March 2013 has been prepared for
submission to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 151 of the
Constitution.
The Report contains significant results of the performance audit and
compliance audit of the Departments of the Government of Uttar
Pradesh under the Economic Sector.
The instances mentioned in this Report are those, which came to notice
in the course of test audit for the period 2012-13 as well as those which
came to notice in earlier years, but could not be reported in the
previous Audit Reports; instances relating to period subsequent to
2012-13 have also been included, wherever necessary.
The Audit has been conducted in conformity with the Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
iii
CHAPTERI
Introduction
Chapter-I: Introduction
CHAPTER-I
Introduction
1.1 About this Report
This Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (C&AG) relates
to matters arising from performance reviews and compliance audit of the
transactions of the Departments including Autonomous Bodies in the
Economic Sector. Audit findings in respect of State Public Sector
Undertakings are reported separately through the Audit Report (Public Sector
Undertakings).
The primary purpose of this Report is to bring to the notice of the State
Legislature, important results of audit. Auditing Standards require that the
materiality level of reporting should be commensurate with the nature, volume
and magnitude of transactions. The findings of audit are expected to enable the
Executive to take the corrective action as also to frame policies and directives
that lead to improved financial management of the organisations, thus
contributing to better governance.
Compliance audit refers to examination of the transactions relating to
expenditure, receipts, assets and liabilities of the audited entities to ascertain
whether the provisions of the Constitution of India, applicable laws, rules and
regulations and various orders and instructions issued by the competent
authorities are being complied with.
Performance review is an independent assessment or examination of the extent
to which an organisation, programme or scheme operates economically,
efficiently and effectively.
This Chapter provides the auditee profile, the planning and conduct of audit
and responsiveness of Government to Audit. Chapter-II of this Report deals
with the findings of performance reviews and Chapter-III deals with
compliance audit in various departments and autonomous bodies.
1.2 Auditee profile
There are 18 Departments at the Secretariat level, headed by Chief Secretary/
Principal Secretaries/Secretaries who are assisted by Special Secretaries,
Deputy Secretaries, Directors and other subordinate officers and 73
Autonomous Bodies in the Economic Sector which are under the audit
jurisdiction of the Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit),
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
The comparative position of expenditure of the Government during 2012-13
and in the preceding two years is given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Comparative position of expenditure for the period 2010-13
(` in crore)
2010-11
Particular
General services
Social services
Economic services
Plan
Total
987.34
15,829.56
4,222.63
47,031.83
23,737.14
11,502.40
48,019.17
39,566.70
15,725.03
4,364.71
4,364.71
21,039.53
19,581.08
86,636.08 1,07,675.61
691.72
20,272.80
Grants-in-aid
Total (1)
Capital Outlay (2)
Loans and Advances
disbursed (3)
Non-plan
2011-12
617.28
350.94
968.22
Plan
Non-plan
2012-13
Total
601.73
17,609.59
4,404.60
52,345.19
29,781.35
13,887.61
52,946.92
47,390.94
18,292.21
---
5,255.10
5,255.10
22,615.92 1,01,269.25 1,23,885.17

20,735.10
838.86
21,573.96
414.48
561.09
975.57
Plan
Non-plan
Total
787.54
21,064.75
4,025.62
59,119.18
32,235.57
17,311.74
59,906.72
53,300.32
21,337.36
--
6,179.24
6,179.24
25,877.91 1,14,845.73 1,40,723.64

22,608.51
1,225.78
23,834.29
383.75
619.49
1,003.24
Audit Report (Economic Sector-Non PSUs) for the year ended 31 March 2013
(` in crore)
2010-11
Particular
Payment of Public
Debt (4)
Total disbursement
out of Consolidated
Fund (1+2+3+4)
Contingency Fund
Public Account
disbursements
Total
Plan
Non-plan
---
41,237.89
---
7,383.08
2011-12
Total
7,383.08
95,061.82 1,36,299.71
39.90
39.90
Plan
Non-plan
---
8,287.61
2012-13
Total
8,287.61
43,765.50 1,10,956.81 1,54,722.31

---
309.64
309.64
Plan
Non-plan
--
8,909.04
Total
8,909.04
48,870.17 1,25,600.04 1,74,470.21

--
262.45
262.45
--- 1,17,472.99 1,17,472.99
--- 1,30,970.76 1,30,970.76
-- 1,29,471.51 1,29,471.51
41,237.89 2,12,574.71 2,53,812.60
43,765.50 2,42,237.21 2,86,002.71
48,870.17 2,55.334.00 3,04,204.17
1.3 Authority for audit

Authority for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is derived
from Articles 149 and 151 of the Constitution of India and the Comptroller
and Auditor Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971
(DPC Act). The Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit),
Uttar Pradesh conducted audit of the Departments of Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Autonomous Bodies under Section 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of the
DPC Act. The principles and methodology for various audits are prescribed in
the Auditing Standards and the Regulations on Audit and Accounts, 2007
issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
1.4 Organisational structure of the office of the Accountant General
(Economic and Revenue Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh
Under the directions of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the
Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh,
conducts audit of Departments, Autonomous Bodies and Public Sector
Undertakings under the Economic and Revenue Sector. For conducting the
audit of Departments, Autonomous Bodies and Public Sector Undertakings
under the Economic Sector, the Accountant General (Economic and Revenue
Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh, is assisted by three Deputy Accountant Generals.
1.5 Planning and conduct of Audit
Audit process commences with the assessment of risk of various Departments
and Autonomous Bodies based on expenditure, criticality/complexity of
activities, level of delegated financial powers, assessment of internal control
and the concerns of stakeholders. Previous audit findings are also considered
in this exercise.
After completion of audit of each unit, Inspection Reports containing audit
findings are issued to the head of the Unit/Department. The Units are
requested to furnish replies to the audit findings within one month of receipt of
the Inspection Report. Whenever replies are received, audit findings are either
settled or further action for compliance is advised. The important audit
observations arising out of these Inspection Reports are processed for
inclusion in the Audit Report.
During 2012-13, 492 party-days were used to carry out audit of 52 Units out
of 498 Units of various Departments/Autonomous Bodies. The audit plan
covered those Units which were vulnerable to significant risk, as per the
assessment.
1.6 Recoveries at the instance of Audit

As a result of audit during the year 2012-13, recovery of ` 9.70 crore was
accepted by the audited entities for effecting recoveries against which an
amount of ` 7.60 crore was recovered.
1.7 Significant Audit Observations
This Report contains the results of two performance audits and six compliance
audit paragraphs. The significant audit observations are discussed below:
1.7.1 Review of the performance of Compensatory Afforestation in Uttar
Pradesh
The UP State CAMPA failed to receive equivalent non-forest land against
forest land diverted for non-forest purposes. Forest land was diverted for nonforest purposes without approval of the Government of India. Fund collected
from user agencies for compensatory afforestation and Net Present Value was
not remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA timely. Instead of remitting the entire fund to
Ad-hoc CAMPA, divisions incurred expenditure out of the fund collected
without approval of Annual Plan of Operations. Net Present Value was
not/ excess recovered in some cases. 46.49 per cent of the funds received for
compensatory afforestation remained unutilised. Proper monitoring and
evaluation system was not evolved.
1.7.2 Review of Construction of Memorials
Audit of construction of four memorials at Lucknow and one memorial at
Noida revealed various irregularities in the execution of projects. Deficient
planning such as frequent additions and revisions, changes in drawings and
designs and consequent re-execution led to hike in the outlay of the project.
Dismantling of pre-existing structures was done without proper approvals.
There was lack of proper documentation regarding recovery from dismantled
materials. Deficiencies in appointment of consultants, lacunae in the
consultancy agreements and non-observance of the conditions thereof resulted
in excess payments. Higher rates were decided due to deficiencies in obtaining
competitive rates and incorrect analysis of rates. The Administrative
Departments failed to monitor and supervise the work of the Executing
Agency with the result that the gross irregularities committed by the Executing
Agency remained unchecked and extra/infructuous expenditure was incurred.
The environmental aspects were also not adequately adhered to as per the
provisions of the relevant Acts.
1.7.3 Compliance audit of transactions
x The Forest Department short recovered transit fee of ` 639.77 crore due to
lack of co-ordination and absence of proper system to monitor the
movement of forest produce.
(Paragraph 3.1)
x The Forest Department was deprived of revenue of ` 36.13 lakh due to
non-sale of roots of the trees.
(Paragraph 3.2)
x The Forest Department short levied royalty of ` 27.37 lakh on eucalyptus
trees of diameters above 45 cm due to non-revision of volume factor
simultaneously with the increase in felling cycle, for trees of diameter
above 45 cm.
(Paragraph 3.3)
3
Lack of due diligence in relinquishment of equity on the part of

IIDD/Government was against the concept of Public Private Partnership
mode of investment. Allotment of land parcels at four sites at acquisition
cost and exemption of stamp duty proved undue benefit to the
Concessionaire. Further, lack of due diligence on the part of
IIDD/Government to fix the toll at rates to meet only the O&M cost led to
undue benefit to the Concessionaire in the form of toll collections, over
and above the already satisfactory IRR of 26 per cent.
(Paragraphs 3.4.10 to 3.4.13)
The Ghaziabad Development Authority and Kanpur Development
Authority failed to deduct Cess amounting to ` 3.35 crore from the bills of
the contractors.
(Paragraph 3.5)
The Ghaziabad Development Authority, Kanpur Development Authority
and Agra Development Authority failed to take concrete steps to develop a
system to ensure compliance of the Government Orders regarding
reservation and concession in fee to children of families below poverty
line.
(Paragraph 3.6)
1.8
Responsiveness of Government to Audit
1.8.1 Lack of response to the draft performance audit reports and

compliance audit paragraphs
The draft performance audit report and compliance audit paragraphs are
forwarded to the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of the concerned
Departments drawing their attention to the audit findings and requesting them
to send their responses within six weeks. It is brought to their personal
attention that in view of likely inclusion of such paragraphs in the Audit
Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which are placed
before the Legislature, it would be desirable to include their comments in the
matter. They are also advised to have meetings with the Accountant General to
discuss the performance audit reports/compliance audit paragraphs proposed
for inclusion in the Audit Report.
During May 2013 to September 2013, two draft performance reviews and six
compliance audit paragraphs were forwarded to the concerned Principal
Secretaries/Secretaries of the Departments demi-officially. The responses in
respect of one draft performance review and one compliance audit paragraph
were received and have been suitably incorporated in the Audit Report. The
responses in respect of one draft performance review and five compliance
audit paragraphs, however, were not received.
1.8.2 Outstanding Inspection Reports
The Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh
arranges to conduct periodical audit inspections of the Government
departments and autonomous bodies under the Economic Sector. These
inspections are followed up with Inspections Reports (IRs). A copy of each of
the paragraphs on the irregularities noticed during test check of records is sent
to the next higher authorities and the Government so as to facilitate monitoring
of the audit observations and its settlement. The Heads of offices and the next
higher authorities are required to comply with the audit observations and
rectify the defects promptly and report their compliance to the office of the
4
Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh. As

of September 2013, 1,420 IRs containing 4,637 paragraphs were pending
settlement. Of these, 539 IRs containing 1,366 audit observations were
outstanding for more than five years. Details of outstanding IRs and
paragraphs are detailed in Appendix-1.
CHAPTERII
Performance Audit
Chapter-II: Performance Audit
CHAPTERII
2.1 Review of the performance of Compensatory Afforestation in
Uttar Pradesh
Executive summary
Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides that no State
Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of
the Central Government any order directing that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Forest land is usually diverted
for non-forest purposes to facilitate developmental activities and whenever
forest land is to be diverted for non-forest purposes, conditions such as
providing equivalent non-forest land for compensatory afforestation and funds
for raising compensatory afforestation are to be imposed.
The Supreme Court of India directed (October 2002) that a Compensatory
Afforestation Fund shall be created in which all the monies received from the
user agencies shall be deposited. The Supreme Court of India later observed
(May 2006) that the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (CAMPA) had still not become operational and ordered
the constitution of an ad-hoc body (known as Ad-hoc CAMPA), till CAMPA
became operational. The Government of Uttar Pradesh established (August
2010) the Uttar Pradesh Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (UP State CAMPA) to promote conservation, protection,
regeneration and management of existing natural forests and wildlife and
compensatory afforestation in the State.
Major audit findings are discussed below:
Non-forest land measuring 8,790.18 hectare valuing ` 615.31 crore was not
received from user agencies in respect of forest land diverted for non-forest
purposes.
The Government should ensure that equivalent non-forest land is received in
all eligible cases of diversion of forest land.
(Paragraph 2.1.9)
Forest land measuring 438.936 hectares was used for non-forest purposes by
user agencies without approval of the Government of India (GoI).
The Government should ensure that forest land is not diverted for non-forest
purposes without prior approval of GoI and recovery of applicable charges.
(Paragraph 2.1.10)
The funds remitted by the UP State CAMPA to Ad-hoc CAMPA were not
reconciled resulting in difference of ` 58.58 crore.
(Paragraph 2.1.14)
The UP State CAMPA remitted revenue collected from user agencies to Adhoc CAMPA with delay ranging between one and 394 days. Similarly,
Divisions of the Forest Department which collected the funds from user
agencies remitted the money with delay ranging between one and 805 days.
7
The Government should ensure that funds collected from user agencies are
remitted to the Ad-hoc CAMPA timely.
(Paragraph 2.1.15)
A sum of ` 16.23 crore realised as premium of land from user agencies was
not remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA and was irregularly treated as revenue receipt
of the State.
(Paragraph 2.1.17)
Demand of ` 54.11 crore for cost of land equivalent to 10 meter strip was not
raised to National Highways Authority of India.
(Paragraph 2.1.18)
Net Present Value amounting to ` 3.01 crore was not recovered from a user
agency and excess Net Present Value of ` 80.58 lakh was recovered from user
agencies due to wrong classification of diverted forest land.
The Government should ensure that the amount of net present value is
recovered from user agencies as per guidelines/norms.
(Paragraph 2.1.19)
Utilisation of Compensatory Afforestation funds
The UP State CAMPA utilised only 53.51 per cent of the total amount
released by Ad-hoc CAMPA leading to accumulation of ` 52.50 crore with
the UP State CAMPA.
(Paragraph 2.1.20)
No independent system of monitoring and evaluation was evolved by the UP
State CAMPA.
The Government should ensure that proper monitoring and evaluation system
is evolved to implement the scheme of afforestation approved under CAMPA.
(Paragraph 2.1.27)
Introduction
2.1.1 Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides that no
State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval
of the Central Government any order directing that any forest land or any
portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Forest land is usually
diverted for non-forest purposes1 to facilitate developmental activities like
construction of power projects, irrigation projects, roads, railways, schools,
hospitals, rural electrification, telecommunication, drinking water facilities,
mining etc.
As per clause 4.2 of the Guidelines issued for implementation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act), forestry clearance for diversion of forest land
will be given in two stages. In the first stage, the proposal shall be agreed to in
1
"Non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for- (a) the
cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b)
any purpose other than reafforestation; but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation,
development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines,
wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks,
boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes (explanation to Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980).
principle in which usually the conditions relating to transfer, mutation and

declaration of Reserve Forest/Protected Forest under the Indian Forest Act,
1927 of equivalent non-forest land for compensatory afforestation and funds
for raising compensatory afforestation thereof are stipulated and after receipt
of compliance report from the State Government in respect of the stipulated
conditions, formal approval under the Act shall be issued.
The Supreme Court of India directed (October 2002) that a Compensatory
Afforestation Fund (CAF) shall be created in which all the monies received
from the user agencies towards compensatory afforestation, additional
compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present
value of forest land, catchment area treatment plan funds, etc. shall be
deposited. Such funds were to be used for artificial regeneration (plantation),
assisted natural regeneration, protection of forests and other related activities.
Formation of Ad-hoc CAMPA
2.1.2 The Government of India (GoI) constituted2 (April 2004) the
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority
(CAMPA) for management of money collected towards compensatory
afforestation, net present value, etc.
In May 2006, the Supreme Court of India observed that CAMPA had still not
become operational and ordered the constitution of an ad-hoc body (known as
Ad-hoc CAMPA), till CAMPA became operational. After constitution of the
Ad-hoc CAMPA all the monies collected from 30 October 2002 by the State
Governments and the Union Territories were to be transferred to the Ad-hoc
CAMPA.
Formation of State CAMPA
2.1.3 The GoI framed (July 2009) The Guidelines on State Compensatory
Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (State CAMPA) for
establishing CAMPAs in the States/ Union Territories and putting in place a
funding mechanism for enhancing forest and tree cover and conservation and
management of wildlife by utilising funds received towards Compensatory
Afforestation, Net Present Value (NPV), etc. currently available with the Adhoc CAMPA. The guidelines were approved (July 2009) by the Supreme
Court of India and circulated (July 2009) by the GoI to all States/Union
Territories.
As per the guidelines, State CAMPA was mandated to promote:
x conservation, protection, regeneration and management of existing natural
forests;
x conservation, protection and management of wildlife and its habitat within
and outside protected areas including the consolidation of the protected
areas;
x compensatory afforestation; and
x environmental services, research, training and capacity building.
In compliance to the aforesaid guidelines, the Government of Uttar Pradesh
(GoUP) established (August 2010) the Uttar Pradesh Compensatory
Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (UP State
CAMPA)3.
2
3
Order No.5-1/98-FC dated the 23 April, 2004, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary vide S. O. 525(E)
Registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The State CAMPAs function through a three-tier committee hierarchy

comprising of the Governing Body, the Steering Committee and the Executive
Committee.
The review of the performance of compensatory afforestation in Uttar Pradesh
was conducted to review the compliance of the concerned Acts, Rules and
guidelines by the GoUP as well as by the UP State CAMPA.
Audit Objectives
2.1.4 The objectives of this review of the performance of compensatory
afforestation in Uttar Pradesh were to examine:
x
whether the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes was permitted
as per extant laws and all conditions in this regard were complied with;
whether measures taken for conservation, afforestation and preservation of

forest lands consequent to diversion of portions of these lands for nonforest purposes was as per provisions of extant legislations, rules and
judgments/orders of the Supreme Court of India; and
whether the collection, utilisation, monitoring, accounting and

arrangements for safeguarding of Compensatory Afforestation Funds was
in compliance with applicable legislations, rules and judgments/orders of
the Supreme Court of India.
Audit Criteria
2.1.5 The review of the performance of compensatory afforestation in Uttar
Pradesh was benchmarked against the criteria derived from the following
sources:
x Indian Forest Act, 1927
x Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
x Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as amended up to 1988.
x Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 as amended up to 2004.
x The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
x
Various Guidelines and orders issued by the GoI as per directives of

Supreme Court of India.
Scope of Audit and Audit Methodology

2.1.6 This review of the performance of compensatory afforestation in Uttar
Pradesh was conducted covering the period of six years from 2006-07 to
2011-124. We covered 39 Forest Divisions out of 79 Forest Divisions where
funds were released by the UP State CAMPA along with the headquarters of
UP State CAMPA.
We explained the audit objectives to the Department during an Entry
Conference held on 4 December 2012. An Exit Conference with the Principal
Secretary of the Forest Department, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
and Chief Conservator of Forests/Chief Executive Officer of UP State
CAMPA was held on 4 September 2013. The replies and views of the UP
As per the orders of the Supreme Court of India, money was to be deposited with Ad-hoc CAMPA from May
2006, hence, the period was covered from 2006-07.
10
State CAMPA/Government have been duly considered while finalising the

review of the performance of compensatory afforestation in Uttar Pradesh.
Audit Findings
2.1.7 The audit findings that emerged as a result of the review of the
performance of compensatory afforestation in Uttar Pradesh have been
discussed in the succeeding paragraphs:
Compensatory Afforestation Fund of the State
Irregular formation of UP State CAMPA
2.1.8 The UP State CAMPA was registered (August 2010) as a society under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In the fourth meeting of the National
CAMPA Advisory Council, it was decided (January 2012) that State
CAMPAs should not work as Societies registered under the Societies
Registration Act and wherever States have registered the State CAMPAs as
Societies, they should disband these so as to conform to the State CAMPA
Guidelines and further release of fund to such States would be subject to their
disbanding of these societies.
We noticed that despite the decision taken by the National CAMPA Advisory
Council to disband the State CAMPAs registered as societies, the UP State
CAMPA is still functioning as a society. However, it was noticed that funds
are being released by Ad-hoc CAMPA to the UP State CAMPA regularly.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that it is nowhere mentioned in
the State CAMPA Guidelines that State CAMPA should not be registered as a
society. It further stated that after the decision of the National CAMPA
Advisory Council; a proposal5 was sent to the GoI to constitute the UP State
CAMPA under Section 3 (3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. During
Exit Conference the Government stated that in absence of clear-cut directions
from Ad-hoc CAMPA there were difficulties regarding the legal status of the
Authority.
Thus, in absence of clear-cut directions from Ad-hoc CAMPA to the States
regarding the form in which the State CAMPAs are to be registered, the UP
State CAMPA continues to function as a society.
Non-receipt of non-forest land in lieu of diverted forest land
2.1.9 Clause 3.2 of the Guidelines issued for implementation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 stipulates that Compensatory Afforestation shall be
undertaken over equivalent area of non-forest land.
As per information made available by the Nodal Officer of the Forest
Department, 40,969.35 hectare forest land was diverted for non-forest
purposes up to September 2013. According to the Guidelines issued for
implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, non-forest land
measuring 14,025.246 hectare was receivable after excluding exempted
5
6
No. 498 dated 19 February 2013.

(A) Total forest land diverted for non-forest purposes ---------------------------------------- 40,969.35 hectare
Less: Exempted categories for which equivalent land was not required to be received(i) Projects up to one hectare ----------------------------------- 222.20 hectare
(ii) Firing range ---------------------------------------------------- 25,885.64 hectare
(iii) Transmission lines up to 220 KV ----------------------- 328.694 hectare
(iv) Optical Fibre cable ------------------------------------------- 15.519 hectare
(v) Link roads and other utilities ------------------------------ 181.7932 hectare
(vi) Central Government Departments ------------------------- 310.2563 hectare
(B) Total exempted categories ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26,944.11 hectare
(C) Non-forest land receivable in lieu of forest land diverted (A-B) -------------------------- 14,025.24 hectare
11
categories, but against this only 5,235.06 hectare land was received. Thus,
8,790.18 hectare of non-forest land (62.67 per cent of the receivable nonforest land) was not received. The value of non-forest land not received works
out to ` 615.31 crore7.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that in view of the Guidelines it is
not mandatory to receive non-forest land in lieu of forest land diverted in all
cases. It further stated that only 5,662.04 hectare land was required to be
received in lieu of the forest land diverted for non-forest purposes.
The reply is not acceptable as Clause 3.2 (vi) to (ix) of the Guidelines issued
for implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 specify the
circumstances under which providing equivalent non-forest land is exempted8
and audit has calculated the receivable non-forest land of 14,025.24 hectare
after taking into consideration all such exemptions. Besides, the details of
calculation of 5,662.04 hectare of land to be received in lieu of forest land
diverted for non-forest purposes was still awaited, though called for (April
2014).
Use of forest land for non-forest purposes without approval from GoI
2.1.10 Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act) provides that
no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land
or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.
Some instances where forest land was used for non-forest purposes without
approval of the GoI are discussed below:
x Irrigation Department of the State executed work on four irrigation
projects9 on 70.836 hectare forest land without obtaining approval of the
GoI. The ex-post-facto approval of the GoI to the proposal sent between
February 2006 and July 2008 was awaited as of September 2013.
While accepting the facts, the UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that
the Irrigation Department has been asked to submit the proposals with
commitment of penal provisions. However, the proposal was awaited as of
August 2013.
x
Forest land measuring 368.10 hectare was used by Irrigation Department

of the State for construction of Shahjad Dam during 1974-75 to 1991-92
without approval of the GoI. As the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came
into force before completion of the project, proposal for ex-post-facto
approval for diversion of forest land was sent by GoUP in July 2000
against which first stage approval was granted by GoI in June 2001. The
final approval of the project is still awaited.
Moreover, against the demand (April 2002) of ` 43.11 crore10 the
Irrigation Department had deposited (January 2005) ` 2.10 crore only and
a sum of ` 41.01 crore still remained unrecovered as of September 2013.
10
Calculated on the basis of latest available circle rate of ` 7.00 lakh per hectare in Sonebhadra district in respect
of agricultural land, which is lowest rate from amongst categories of land for which circle rates are finalised,.
Clearing of naturally grown trees to reuse it for reforestation; Proposals involving land up to one hectare;
Underground mining below three meters; Renewal of mining lease for the area already broken/used for mining,
dumping or overburden etc.; Central Government/Central Government Undertaking Projects; Extraction of
minor minerals from river beds; Construction of link roads, small water works, minor irrigation works, school
building, dispensaries, hospitals, tiny rural industrial sheds; Laying of transmission lines up to 220 kV; Mulberry
plantation; Laying of telephone/ optical fibre lines and Field firing ranges.
Thana minor 2.155 hectare, Sunaori Rajbaha 0.287 hectare, Pawa Rajbaha 1.200 hectare and Utari Dam
67.194 hectare.
Compensatory Afforestation - ` 2.31 crore, Penal Compensatory Afforestation - ` 6.93 crore and Net Present
Value - ` 33.87 crore.
12
While accepting the audit observation the UP State CAMPA stated

(August 2013) that the GoI has already given in-principle approval for the
project with penal provisions of the Act and the Irrigation Department has
been asked to comply with the conditions in the in-principle approval.
Grant of mining lease in violation of rules
2.1.11 Clause 4.16 of the Guidelines issued for implementation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 provides that the approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for grant/ renewal of
mining leases shall normally be granted for a period co-terminus with the
period of mining lease proposed to be granted under Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or rules framed thereunder but not
exceeding 30 years.
We during audit of Forest Division, Renukoot noticed that in contravention to
the aforesaid Guidelines, approval for mining lease to Northern Coalfields
Limited, Dudhi Chua and Kharia was granted by GoI for a period of 40 years
(4 January 1991 to 3 January 2031).
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the Government has issued
the letter of approval after due consideration, hence, the question of violation
does not arise. It further stated that the proponent has to pay the lease rent
accordingly for 40 years.
The reply is not acceptable as grant of approval for mining lease in excess of
30 years was against the Guidelines.
Construction of approach roads for road side commercial establishments in
the State without obtaining approval for diversion
2.1.12 As per Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no forest
land can be used for non-forest purposes except with the approval of the GoI.
The Forest Advisory Committee of GoI noticed (August 2012) that approach
roads are being constructed for petrol pumps, hotels and other commercial
establishments alongside the protected forest area without the permission of
GoI and directed the State Governments to submit proposals for ex-post-facto
approval of such cases under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
We noticed that despite the directions of the Forest Advisory Committee of
GoI, no action has been taken to identify the cases which may require ex-post
facto approval by the GoI as of August 2013.
While accepting the audit observation, the UP State CAMPA stated (August
2013) that the Divisional Forest Officers have been instructed (October 2012)
to follow the circular.
2.1.13 The Divisions covered in audit11 collected an amount of ` 427.31
crore12 during the period 2002-2012 as detailed in Appendix-2. The
deficiencies noticed in collection of compensatory afforestation funds are
discussed in the succeeding paragraphs:
11
12
39 Forest Divisions out of 79 Forest Divisions.

Compensatory Afforestation - ` 122.92 crore, Net Present Value - ` 237.64 crore, Additional Compensatory
Afforestation - ` 0.70 crore, Penal Compensatory Afforestation - ` 0.40 crore, Catchment Area Treatment ` 0.35 crore and others - ` 65.29 crore.
13
Non-reconciliation of funds transferred by UP State CAMPA to Ad-hoc

CAMPA
2.1.14 The UP State CAMPA collected a sum of ` 584.52 crore13 from user
agencies up to March 2012 which was remitted to the Ad-hoc CAMPA from
time to time. The accounts of Ad-hoc CAMPA, however, showed receipt of
` 643.10 crore.
We noticed that despite the directions of Ad-hoc CAMPA issued in 2006 and
2007 regarding maintaining proper records of receipts and periodic
reconciliation, no such reconciliation was done resulting in difference of
` 58.58 crore14 in the status of funds reported as received by Ad-hoc CAMPA
and claimed to have been transferred by the UP State CAMPA.
Thus, un-reconciled difference between the amounts claimed to have been
transferred by UP State CAMPA and the amount reported as received by the
Ad-hoc CAMPA is indicative of laxity in the financial controls.
The UP State CAMPA agreed (August 2013) that reconciliation of funds
remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA for the year 2006-07 only has been done up to
January 2013 and the date of next reconciliation has been sought from Ad-hoc
CAMPA.
Delay in transfer of funds to Ad-hoc CAMPA
2.1.15 In May 2006, while directing the creation of Ad-hoc CAMPA, the
Supreme Court of India directed that it was to be ensured that all the revenue
realised on behalf of CAMPA and lying with various officials of the State
Government were transferred to the bank account(s) to be operated by the Adhoc CAMPA.
We noticed that there were delays in remittance of the funds from Divisions to
UP State CAMPA and also from UP State CAMPA to Ad-hoc CAMPA as
discussed below:
x
The Divisions of the Forest Department remitted ` 109.45 crore, collected

from 32 user agencies in 238 cases, to the UP State CAMPA with delay15
ranging between one and 805 days (Appendix-3).
The UP State CAMPA remitted ` 130.47 crore, collected from 41 user

agencies in 419 cases (received from the Divisions), to Ad-hoc CAMPA
with delay16 ranging between one and 394 days (Appendix-4).
No reasons for delay in remission of funds were furnished.

Funds not remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA
2.1.16 According to the orders (October 2002 and May 2006) of the Supreme
Court of India, all monies collected by the State Governments and the Union
Territories from the user agencies towards compensatory afforestation, net
present value of forest land, etc., with effect from 30 October 2002, were to be
transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA. The Ad-hoc CAMPA releases the funds to
the State CAMPAs for afforestation works on the basis of Annual Plan of
13
14
15
16
Compensatory Afforestation - ` 147.50 crore, Net Present Value - ` 356.09 crore and Wildlife and Others ` 80.93 crore.
Receipt as per accounts of Ad-hoc CAMPA: ` 643.10 crore less Amount remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA by UP
State CAMPA: ` 584.52 crore = ` 58.58 crore
The cases covered are of transfers after formation of Ad-hoc CAMPA in May 2006. The delays reported here
have been calculated after allowing a period of 14 days to arrange for transfer.
The cases covered are of transfers after formation of Ad-hoc CAMPA in May 2006. The delays reported here
have been calculated after allowing a period of 14 days to arrange for transfer.
14
Operations (APOs) approved by the Steering Committee of the State CAMPA.

Thereafter, the State CAMPAs carry out compensatory afforestation as per the
site specific schemes approved in the APOs.
We, during audit of State CAMPA noticed that Awadh Forest Division
collected a sum of ` 81 lakh between November 2004 and June 2006 from
user agencies in respect of four projects but instead of remitting the same to
Ad-hoc CAMPA, spent a sum of ` 12.69 lakh and remitted balance amount of
` 68.31 lakh only to the Ad-hoc CAMPA (Appendix-5). Non-remittance of
compensatory afforestation funds of ` 12.69 lakh to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and
utilisation of the same for other purposes without approval of APO was
irregular.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that since there were no
guidelines for depositing the money with Ad-hoc CAMPA till May 2006, the
amount was spent towards on-going projects of afforestation.
The reply is not acceptable as in view of specific orders of the Supreme Court
of India of October 2002 and May 2006, all monies collected towards
compensatory afforestation, net present value etc., with effect from 30 October
2002, were to be transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA. Moreover, other
Divisions test checked in audit, had remitted all monies collected towards
compensatory afforestation.
Non-deposit of premium with Ad-hoc CAMPA
2.1.17 The approval letters17 of GoI for diversion of forest land for non-forest
purposes inter-alia provides that the user agencies were required to comply
with any additional condition imposed by the concerned State Governments.
The GoUP while approving the diversion of forest land imposed an additional
condition (in some cases) that the user agencies shall pay premium at the
prevailing circle rate18 of the respective Districts for the land being diverted
along with lease rent. As premium at the prevailing circle rate is also
recovered against additional condition in respect of forest land diverted for
non-forest purposes, it should also be remitted to the Ad-hoc CAMPA.
We noticed that premium of ` 16.23 crore realised during June 2006 to June
2011 in six cases19 was not remitted to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and the same was
irregularly retained by the GoUP under revenue head.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the conditions requiring
premium and lease rent are not governed by Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
rather these are State conditions imposed by the GoUP vide circular no.
6450/14-3-930/17 dated 2 July 1979; hence, retaining the revenue receipt is
not an irregular act.
We do not agree with the reply as all monies collected from user agencies in
lieu of diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes has to be remitted to the
Ad-hoc CAMPA.
Loss due to inaction
2.1.18 While according approvals for diversion of forest land for
construction/widening of National Highways by the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI), the GoUP imposes an additional condition that the
17
18
19
Six in number in respect of cases test checked in audit.

Fixed by the District Collector.
Five cases in Renukoot- ` 13.93 crore and one case in Kaimoor- ` 2.30 crore.
15
NHAI shall make available 10 meter wide strip of land along the Highway and
pay for the cost of plantation on this strip.
Further, in view of difficulties in providing land in populated areas and
markets along the highways, the GoUP vide its order (November 2005)
relaxed the aforesaid condition and provided that area equivalent to the 10
meter strip may be made available in the same district elsewhere. The GoUP
vide its order (December 2007) further relaxed the aforesaid condition and
provided that the NHAI shall pay the market price of land equivalent to the 10
meter strip along with the cost of plantation. The GoUP vide its order
(November 2009) further waived the condition and provided that apart from
land or its cost made available by NHAI up to 14 January 2009, no additional
demand in this respect shall be raised.
We noticed that despite the Government Order of December 2007, no demand
in 15 cases (Appendix-6), wherein approval was accorded during the period
November 2004 to June 2007, for the cost of land equivalent to the 10 meter
strip amounting to ` 54.11 crore was raised to NHAI. The projects were
completed in the year 2009-10 and in view of the Government Order of
November 2009 no demand can be raised now. Thus, due to inaction on the
part of concerned Divisions, the UP State CAMPA was deprived of revenue of
` 54.11 crore (Appendix-6) in respect of 652.31 hectare land involved in the
projects.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the Government Order of
November 2009 waived the condition for providing 10 meter wide strip of
land/equivalent money by the user agency, hence, there was no reason to
realise money for compensatory afforestation.
The reply is not acceptable as the land was made available to NHAI prior to
the issue of Government Order of November 2009 and the concerned
Divisions had failed to raise the demand of funds to NHAI as per the
Government Order of December 2007 for 23 months (December 2007 to
October 2009) which had resulted in loss of revenue to the extent of ` 54.11
crore.
Recovery of Net Present Value
2.1.19 Net Present Value (NPV) represents the loss of value of forest
resources to the stakeholders or the users as at the time of diversion of forest
land for non-forest use. The Supreme Court of India in its order dated 29
October 2002 directed that NPV should be recovered at the rate of ` 5.80 lakh
per hectare to ` 9.20 lakh per hectare of forest land depending upon the
canopy density of the land20. In March 2008, the Supreme Court of India
revised the rates of NPV which ranged between ` 4.38 lakh per hectare and
` 10.43 lakh per hectare depending on various factors.
We noticed instances of non/excess recovery of NPV which are discussed
below:
x Lalitpur Forest Division did not recover NPV of ` 3.01 crore21 from the
user agency22 in case of diversion of forest land for Jakhlaun Pump Canal
for which in-principle approval of GoI was accorded in February 2001 but
final approval was still awaited.
20
21
22
For canopy density below 0.1 - ` 5.80 lakh per hectare, for canopy density 0.1 to 0.4 - ` 7.50 lakh per hectare
and for canopy density above 0.4 - ` 9.20 lakh per hectare.
32.718 hectare x ` 9.20 lakh = ` 3.01 crore.
Irrigation Department of the State.
16
The UP State CAMPA while confirming the audit observation stated

(August 2013) that the user agency has been requested to deposit NPV at
the rate of ` 9.20 lakh per hectare.
x
Three Forest Divisions23 recovered (March 2006 to April 2008) excess

NPV of ` 80.58 lakh from user agencies24 due to incorrect classification of
diverted forest land (Appendix-7).
UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the range of ` 5.50 lakh per
hectare to ` 9.20 lakh per hectare was specified as a broad spectrum and as
a matter of abundant precaution, NPV at the highest rate was realised.
The reply is not acceptable as the criteria of canopy density for calculating
NPV was prescribed in October 2002 itself, hence, the correct amount of
Net Present Value to be recovered could have been calculated considering
the applicable rates for the concerned canopy density.
Utilisation of Compensatory Afforestation Funds

Accumulation of funds with UP State CAMPA
2.1.20 All monies collected by State Governments and Union Territories
towards compensatory afforestation, net present value, etc. are remitted to the
Ad-hoc CAMPA. The Ad-hoc CAMPA then releases the funds to the State
CAMPAs for afforestation works on the basis of approved Annual Plan of
Operations (APOs). Thereafter, the State CAMPAs carry out compensatory
afforestation as per the site specific schemes approved in the APOs.
The details of funds remitted by the UP State CAMPA to Ad-hoc CAMPA,
funds released by Ad-hoc CAMPA to UP State CAMPA and expenditure
incurred there against by UP State CAMPA during the period 2006-07 to
2012-13 are given in table below:
Table 2.1: Details of remittances of funds
(` in crore)
Year
Amount remitted
to Ad-hoc CAMPA
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Total
303.37
91.21
35.97
16.90
95.23
41.84
36.64
621.16
Amount received by
UP State CAMPA
from Ad-hoc CAMPA
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
47.10
35.35
30.48
112.93
Expenditure
incurred by UP
State CAMPA
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
38.62
21.81
Nil
60.43
Accumulation of
funds with UP
State CAMPA
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
8.48
13.54
30.48
52.50
(Source: Information furnished by UP State CAMPA)
As is evident from the table above that the UP State CAMPA utilised only
` 60.43 crore (53.51 per cent) out of ` 112.93 crore released by Ad-hoc
CAMPA leading to accumulation of ` 52.50 crore (46.49 per cent) with the
UP State CAMPA resulting in non-execution of compensatory afforestation
works envisaged in the APOs.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that money against APOs for the
years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were released by Ad-hoc CAMPA in March 2011
and February 2012 and then the money was released to the Divisions to
execute the APO. The reply is not acceptable as the money released in March
2011 and February 2012 remained unutilised till March 2013.
23
24
Bahraich, Najibabad and Barabanki.

Indian Railways, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
17
Funding of Annual Plan of Operations

2.1.21 The Ad-hoc CAMPA releases fund to State CAMPAs on the basis of
approved Annual Plan of Operations (APOs). Clause 12 (2) of the State
CAMPA Guidelines provides that after receipt of money, the State CAMPA
shall accomplish the afforestation for which money is deposited in the
Compensatory Afforestation Fund, within a period of one year or two growing
seasons after project completion, as may be appropriate.
We noticed that UP State CAMPA allocated (2009-10 to 2010-11)
compensatory afforestation funds without linkage to funds collected and
deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund by the Divisions
(Appendix-8). For example, Fatehpur Division and Firozabad Division were
allocated ` 96.84 lakh and ` 49 lakh respectively as against their total receipt
from compensatory afforestation of ` 5.09 lakh and ` 29.17 lakh respectively.
However, seven districts25 were allocated funds amounting to less than five
per cent of their total receipts from compensatory afforestation (Appendix-8).
This indicates that the funds were allocated by the UP State CAMPA without
considering the actual receipt for the compensatory afforestation by the
respective Divisions.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that allocation of compensatory
afforestation fund depends upon the diversion of forest land in certain district
and thereupon availability of non-forest/degraded forest land in that district in
lieu of the diverted forest land. Hence, allocation of fund has no correlation
with the availability of total funds.
We do not accept the reply as funds collected from a Division indicates the
extent of forest land diverted and therefore requires compensatory
afforestation to that extent for which allocation of funds should be made in
proportion to the funds collected. Therefore, the allocation of funds made was
not in line with Clause 12 (2) of the State CAMPA Guidelines.
Thus, the UP State CAMPA did not exercise due diligence while allocation of
funds in which one major criteria was extent of diverted forest land.
Excess expenditure on afforestation
2.1.22 Faizabad Division procured (February 2012) 17,207 Reinforced
Cement Concrete (RCC) pillars at the rate of ` 281 per piece whereas as per
approved estimate only ` 242.69 per piece was admissible. Thus, the Division
incurred extra expenditure of ` 6.59 lakh26.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the model rate for RCC
pillars was decided long back in November 2007.
The reply is not acceptable as no revised estimate was submitted for approval
before executing the work on rates higher than approved.
Non- compliance of Supreme Courts order for execution of work
2.1.23 As per the orders (July 2009) of the Supreme Court of India, the broad
guidelines adopted by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MNREGA) are to be followed while carrying out work with
the funds received from Ad-hoc CAMPA and the work is to be allotted mostly
to rural unemployed people maintaining the minimum wages level. Guidelines
of MNREGA provided that work was to be given to rural people having job
cards and payment was to be made directly into their bank accounts.
25
26
Bulandshahar Forest Division, Kaimoor Wildlife Division, Meerut Forest Division, , Mirzapur Forest Division
Renukoot Forest Division, Saharanpur Forest Division and Shahjahanpur Forest Division.
17,207 x (281.00 - 242.69) = ` 6.59 lakh.
18
We noticed that all Forest Divisions, test checked in audit, made cash
payments to the labourers through muster roll. Besides, the payments were
made at the rate of ` 100 per day instead of at the prescribed rate of ` 120 per
day (up to March 2011) and ` 125 per day (since April 2012).
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that payment was made as per the
process laid down in Financial Handbook Volume-VII which allows payment
to the labourers through muster rolls and the rates have been revised with
effect from April 2013. The fact remains that cash payments at lower rates
were made to the labourers in contravention to the Guidelines of MNREGA
which stipulates that payments should be made through banks at prescribed
rates.
Discrepancy in utilisation certificates
2.1.24 The UP State CAMPA released (September 2011) a sum of ` 70.05
lakh for installation of 300 solar lights at the rate of ` 23,351 per light to
various Divisions.
We noticed that the Divisions purchased the solar lights from Nonconventional Energy Development Agency (NEDA) at subsidised rates of
` 16,251 per light (Total Cost - ` 23,351 per light less subsidy - ` 7,100 per
light) but submitted Utilisation Certificates (UCs) for expenditure at the rate of
` 23,351 per light instead of at the rate of ` 16,251 per light. Thus, ` 7,100 per
light was irregularly shown as utilised.
During Exit conference, the Government stated that in some cases the UCs
have been revised. The fact remains that UCs submitted were not based on the
actual amount utilised.
Loss of interest due to late opening of interest bearing bank accounts
2.1.25 According to Clause 10.3 of the State CAMPA Guidelines issued by
GoI in July 2009, the monies received in the State CAMPA shall be kept in
interest-bearing account(s) in nationalised bank(s) and periodically withdrawn
for the works as per the APOs approved by the Steering Committee. Further,
Clause 16 (3) of State CAMPA Guidelines provides that the State CAMPA
shall maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an
annual statement of accounts.
We noticed that while disbursing funds to the Forest Divisions, the UP State
CAMPA did not issue instructions to this effect and released (25 March 2011)
a sum of ` 6.01 crore27 for execution of works approved under APO 2009-10.
These Divisions, instead of opening an interest bearing savings bank account
in a nationalised bank, kept the money in Government account under Forest
Deposit (Account Head 8443). The divisions however, transferred the
money in savings bank account in a nationalised Bank in August 2011. Thus,
delay in opening of interest bearing account resulted in loss of interest
amounting to ` 14.20 lakh28.
We further observed that UP State CAMPA released ` 6.70 crore to Basti
Forest Division on 25 March 2011 which was kept in Government account
under Forest Deposit (Account Head 8443) instead of in a separate savings
bank account. Further expenditure was made through the normal treasury
system. As the funds were not kept in a separate bank account and separate
27
28
Awadh Forest Division - ` 2.12 crore, Gorakhpur Forest Division - ` 2.40 crore and Faizabad Forest Division ` 1.49 crore.
Calculated at the rate of 7 per cent being the interest rate on savings bank account with auto sweep facility
19
cash book was not maintained, the entire amount remained out of account of
UP State CAMPA.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that the GoUP directed to open
interest bearing account in July 2011.
The reply confirms that State CAMPA Guidelines of July 2009 were
implemented after a lapse of two years resulting in loss of interest of ` 14.20
lakh.
Inadequate monitoring and supervision
2.1.26 As per Clause 14 of State CAMPA Guidelines, the Governing body
headed by the Chief Minister of the State was to lay down the broad policy
framework for the functioning of the State level CAMPA and review its
working from time to time. The Steering Committee headed by the Chief
Secretary was to approve the APOs and monitor the progress of utilisation of
funds released by the State CAMPA and it was to meet at least once in six
months. The Executive Committee headed by the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests (PCCF) was to prepare the APOs, take all steps for giving effect to
State CAMPA and overreaching objectives and core principles and to
supervise the works being implemented in the State out of the funds released
from State CAMPA.
We noticed that two meetings of Governing Body, four meetings29 of the
Steering Committee and ten meetings of the Executive Committee were held
during the period August 2010 to date (August 2013). Thus, the meetings of
these bodies of the State CAMPA were not being held at prescribed intervals
(once in six month in case of Steering Committee) due to which preparation of
APOs, supervision of utilisation of funds and progress of projects being run
out of the CAMPA fund etc. could not be monitored as per the State CAMPA
Guidelines.
The UP State CAMPA did not furnish any specific reply and only confirmed
the factual position in its reply (August 2013).
Absence of monitoring and evaluation system
2.1.27 Clause 17 (1) of the State CAMPA Guidelines provides that, an
independent system for concurrent monitoring and evaluation be evolved and
implemented to ensure effective and proper utilisation of funds.
We during audit of the UP State CAMPA noticed that no independent system
of concurrent monitoring and evaluation has been evolved by it till date
(February 2014). Although a sum of ` 35 lakh and ` 65 lakh was earmarked
during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively for monitoring and evaluation, no
expenditure was incurred by the UP State CAMPA for the purpose till date
(February 2014)30.
Thus, lack of proper monitoring and evaluation system contributed to nondetection of irregularities pointed out supra and hence, no mid-course
corrective action was taken.
29
30
As against six meetings required to be held.

As per information made available to audit, no amount was allocated during 2012-13 as the amount allocated
during 2010-11 and 2011-12 was not utilised.
20
The UP State CAMPA without giving details of the system adopted, stated
(August 2013) that evaluation has to be done after three years of plantation
and hence, the money will be utilised in subsequent years.
The reply is not acceptable as norms of evaluation, after three years, as quoted
above by UP State CAMPA, are for plantation work only and not for other
related works being carried out by the UP State CAMPA. Moreover
concurrent monitoring and evaluation was to be done for proper utilisation of
funds.
Status of Accounts and Audit of State CAMPA
Absence of an appropriate and effective accounting process
2.1.28 As per Clause 16 (3) of State CAMPA Guidelines, State CAMPA
would maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an
annual statement of accounts in such form as may be prescribed in
consultation with the Accountant General concerned.
We noticed that the State CAMPA did not approach the Accountant General
for consultation to prescribe a format of accounts. A uniform format of
accounts was prescribed by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India for the State/Union Territory CAMPA in May 201231 which was yet
to be implemented.
The UP State CAMPA stated (August 2013) that it has been constituted under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 hence the bylaws of the society were
made applicable.
The reply is evasive as the Societies Registration Act in no way impedes
evolving an appropriate and effective accounting process for maintenance of
accounts and other relevant records.
Conclusion
2.1.29 The UP State CAMPA failed to receive equivalent non-forest land
against forest land diverted for non-forest purposes. Forest land was
diverted for non- forest purposes without approval of the Government of
India. Fund collected from user agencies for compensatory afforestation
and Net Present Value was not remitted to Ad-hoc CAMPA timely.
Instead of remitting the entire fund to Ad-hoc CAMPA, divisions
incurred expenditure out of the fund collected without approval of
Annual Plan of Operations. Net Present Value was not/excess recovered
in some cases. 46.49 per cent of the funds received for compensatory
afforestation remained unutilised. Proper monitoring and evaluation
system was not evolved.
Recommendations
2.1.30 The Government should ensure that:
x
Equivalent non-forest land is received in all eligible cases of diversion

of forest land for non-forest purposes;
Forest land is not diverted for non-forest purposes without prior

approval of GoI and recovery of applicable charges;
31
The same was communicated to the UP State CAMPA by the Accountant General (Economic and Revenue
Sector Audit) Uttar Pradesh in June 2012.
21
The amount of compensatory afforestation and net present value is

recovered from user agencies as per guidelines/norms;
Funds collected from user agencies are remitted to the Ad-hoc

CAMPA timely;
Proper monitoring and evaluation system is evolved to implement the

scheme of afforestation approved under CAMPA.
22
2.2 Review of Construction of Memorials

Executive Summary
The Government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioned construction of four memorials
at Lucknow (Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Manyavar
Shri Kanshiram Ji Smarak Sthal, Bauddh Vihar Shanti Upvan and Eco park
and Manyavar Shri Kanshiram Ji Green (Eco) Garden) and the New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority sanctioned construction of one memorial at
Noida (Rashtriya Dalit Prerna Sthal and Green Garden). Uttar Pradesh
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited was the main Executing Agency (EA) for
construction of these memorials and was allocated 98.61 per cent of the total
financial outlay of ` 4,558.01 crore.
Major audit findings are discussed below:
Financial management
Expenditure Finance Committee did not examine the necessity and
expediency aspects of the projects.
The original sanctioned outlay of ` 943.73 crore for these projects was finally
revised to ` 4,558.01 crore with hikes ranging from 192 to 986 per cent.
Excess expenditure of ` 10.53 crore was incurred by the EA due to imprudent
financial management.
EA made excess/avoidable payment of taxes of ` 4.05 crore and failed to
deduct VAT at source of ` 3.64 crore.
We recommend that the Government and its executing agencies should
exercise proper financial and administrative controls in all projects.
Planning
Selection of consultants for comprehensive Consultancy and Architectural
Services was not made through competitive bidding.
Excess payment of ` 2.31 crore was made to the consultants due to payment
at higher rates for repetitive works and incorrect calculation of project.
The projects were never conceived as a whole resulting in additions of new
works of ` 3,537.68 crore during execution phases of works.
There were frequent amendments in the drawings and designs of the projects
entailing dismantling/demolition of recently constructed structures resulting in
infructuous expenditure of ` 29.62 crore.
Improper planning of works resulted in re-execution of works which led to
extra expenditure of ` one crore.
properly plan to conceive the project so as to avoid extra expenditure
Execution of projects
The Administrative Departments and EA did not maintain proper records of
re-use and value of scrap materials retrieved from dismantling of pre-existing
structure.
23
Rates for majority of the items were decided by the EA itself without
obtaining approval of the High Level Committee constituted for approving
rates.
The EA failed to generate adequate competition leading to receipt of higher
rates which could not be detected due to incorrect analysis of the rates
obtained, resulting in award of works at higher rates and excess expenditure of
` 397.90 crore.
The EA did not initially segregate works having two different features and
awarded higher rates of composite features resulting in excess expenditure of
` 18.41 crore.
The EA procured both rough size and cut size Mirzapur sandstone at the same
rates during the same period resulting in extra expenditure of ` 16.11 crore.
Lack of prudence and due diligence prior to finalisation of bid led to extra
expenditure of ` 18.37 crore.
The EA did not consider lowest available rates of electrical items and placed
orders at higher item-wise rates resulting in extra expenditure of ` 2.34 crore.
The Committees constituted to oversee execution of art works were neither
involved in the price determination process nor in the process for selection of
art works.
Excess expenditure of ` 12.74 crore was incurred on procurement of bronze
murals, fountains and capitals due to incorrect computation of rates, award of
excess rates and non-consideration of actual weight for payment respectively.
We recommend that the Government and its executing agencies should ensure
compliance of extant laws, rules and provisions of their manual.
(Paragraphs 2.2.19 to 2.2.22, 2.2.26, 2.2.31, 2.2.32, 2.2.34 and 2.2.36)
The EA started construction work of the projects at Lucknow even before
applying for No Objection Certification/Environmental Clearance.
(Paragraph 2.2.38)
The High Level Committee was not formed by the Government to supervise
and monitor the projects. Besides, the Committees constituted by the
Departments were not fully functional resulting in lack of proper monitoring
and supervision of the projects.
strengthen their monitoring mechanism for works of special nature
(Paragraph 2.2.40)
Introduction
2.2.1 The Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) sanctioned (during 2007-08
to 2009-10)32 construction of four memorials at Lucknow. The New Okhla
32
Please refer to Sl. No. 5 of Table 2.2.
24
Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) had also sanctioned construction

of one memorial at Noida under intimation (27 August 2009) to GoUP.
Status of the projects
2.2.2 A brief mention about the projects of memorials showing land area,
main buildings of the memorials, date of sanction and handing over to
Smarkon, Sangrahalayon, Sansthano, Parkon Va Upvano Aadi Ki
Prabandhan Suraksha Evam Anurakshan Samiti (SSPUPSAS)33 has been
summarised as under:
Table 2.2: Nature of work done and details of sanctioned and actual cost of the memorials
Sl.
No.
Particulars
1.
Objective
2.
Client
organisation
3.
Land area
(acres)
Main
Buildings of
Memorials
4.
5.
6.
Date of
sanction
Status of
Handing over
Dr.Bhim Rao
Manyavar Shri
Ambedkar
Kanshiram Ji
Samajik
Smarak Sthal,
Parivartan Sthal,
Lucknow
Lucknow
(Smarak Sthal)
(Samajik
Parivartan Sthal)
To
provide To pay tribute to
longevity, grandeur Manyavar
Shri
and
qualitative Kanshiram Ji for
improvement to the his struggle to
existing Dr. B.R. create
awareness
Ambedkar Smarak regarding
the
and
Dr.
B.R. Constitutional
Ambedkar Samajik rights provided to
Parivartan
the
Dalit
and
Pustakalaya Evam Backward classes
Sangrahalay and its of the society
premises
Housing and
HUPD, Public
Urban Planning
Works
Department
Department
(HUPD) and
(PWD) and DoC
Department of
Culture (DoC)
107.10
40.00
Bauddh Vihar
Shanti Upvan
and Eco Park,
Lucknow
(Bauddh Vihar)
Manyavar Shri
Kanshiram Ji
Green (Eco)
Garden,
Lucknow (Eco
Garden)
Rashtriya Dalit
Prerna Sthal and
Green Garden,
Noida (Prerna
Sthal)
Total
To
strengthen,
beautify
and
develop the right
bank of Sharda
Canal
and
construct Bauddh
Vihar
Shanti
Upvan and Eco
Park
To
promote
ecological balance
in the city of
Lucknow
To honour the
Sants, Gurus and
Mahapurush born
from time to time
in
Dalit
and
Backward classes
Department of
Irrigation (DoI)
and DoC
HUPD
New Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority
30.00
194.00
82.50
453.60
Smarak,
Sangrahalaya,
Gallery, Pratibimb
Sthal,
Drishya
Sthal,
Gautam
Buddha
Sthal,
Samajik
Parivartan
Stambh, Forecourt
and
Elephant
Gallery
4 October 2007
Main
Smarak
bhawan
and
Elephant Gallery
Main Bauddh Vihar

Parisar, Eco park
and Administrative
block
Main Eco Park,

Rock Garden and
Eco
thematic
ornamental work
Central Park Plaza,

Elephant Gallery,
Dr.
Ambedkar
Statue,
and
Column Plaza
2 November 2007
22 February 2008
10 April 2008
October 2011
September 2011
September 2011
16 September
2009
November 2011
Project
is
completed
and
opened to public
in October 2013.
However, it is not
yet handed over.
(Source: Compiled from the records of Departments and Executing agency)
Budget for the projects of Memorials

2.2.3 The GoUP made budgetary provisions during 2007-08 to 2011-12 for
construction of four Memorials at Lucknow involving four Departments34.
33
34
Constituted as a society under the general control of Lucknow Development Authority and authorised by the
GoUP for management, security and maintenance of these Memorials vide Office Memorandum no. 1891/8-12009-01/Budget/2009 Dated 29 May 2009 of Housing and Urban Planning Department.
Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD), Department of Culture (DoC), Public Works Department
(PWD) and Department of Irrigation (DoI).
25
NOIDA provided funds during 2008-09 to 2011-12 for construction of one

Memorial at Noida. Details of funds provided for construction of the projects
of the Memorials through various Government Departments and NOIDA to
the main executing agency Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited
(hereinafter referred as EA) and other Construction Agencies are summarised
in Appendix-9.
As can be seen from Appendix-9, EA was allocated 98.61 per cent of the
total financial outlay of ` 4,558.01 crore during 2007-08 to 2011-12. A
nominal fund allocation was also made to other construction agencies35.
Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) worked as Nodal agency for the
projects funded by Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD).
Audit objectives
2.2.4 The main objectives of the review of construction of memorials were to
ascertain whether:
x
Prescribed rules and procedures were followed while according necessary

approvals;
Effective and efficient cost control mechanism was in place;
Construction work was planned properly and executed economically,

efficiently and effectively in accordance with the prescribed procedures;
Environmental safeguards were given due care; and
Proper supervision and monitoring of works was done.
Audit scope and methodology

2.2.5 The review of construction of memorials was conducted with a view to
examine the conceptualisation, administrative and financial sanctions,
execution and monitoring of the projects. For this purpose we examined 36 the
records of the Government Departments37 and the main executing agency viz,
Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (for all the projects including
the project funded by NOIDA). An Entry conference with the Executing
Agency (EA) was held on 18 April 2012. Exit conferences were held on 16
April 2013 and 26 April 2013 with Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban
Planning Department (HUPD); Special Secretary/Representatives of the
concerned Departments/ EA. The review on Construction of memorials was
issued to the Government and EA in July 2013. Replies of the concerned
Departments/EA (September 2013 to January 2014) were considered while
finalising this review. Public Works Department (PWD) did not furnish their
replies.
The audit findings on the construction work of Samajik Parivartan Sthal and
Smarak Sthal was also featured in Paragraph 3.6 of Report No. 4
(Commercial) of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year
ended 31 March 2010, GoUP.
Our methodology included explaining the audit objectives to the top
Management of EA during entry conference, scrutiny of records, interaction
35
36
37
Public Works Department: ` 45.60 crore (1 per cent); DoI: ` 3.07 crore (0.07 per cent); Construction and
Design Services wing of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam: ` 0.67 crore (0.01 per cent); and Uttar Pradesh State Bridge
Corporation Limited: ` 14.09 crore (0.31 per cent).
Records of EA were examined between October 2011 to June 2012 and records of the Departments/LDA were
examined between July 2012 to September 2012 intermittently depending upon the availability of records as and
when made by the Department and EA.
Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD), Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), Department of
Culture (DoC), Public Works Department (PWD) and Department of Irrigation (DoI).
26
with auditee personnel, analysis of data with reference to audit criteria and
raising audit queries followed by discussion with Management.
Audit criteria
2.2.6 The review of Construction of memorials was benchmarked against the
criteria derived from the following sources:
x
Terms and condition of the Administrative approvals and Financial

sanctions;
Directions of the Government/Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC);
Orders regarding roles and functioning of the EFC;
Working Manual of the EA;
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines regarding award of

work, appointment of Consultants and mobilisation advance;
Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department (UPPWD)/Central Public Works

Department (CPWD) specifications and Schedule of Rates; and
Acts, Rules and Guidelines relating to environment and taxation.
Audit findings
2.2.7 The audit findings relating to financial management, planning,
execution of projects and environmental issues that emerged from our audit
are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Financial management
Cost control mechanism
2.2.8 The Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) controls examination of all
aspects of the projects and its financial sanctions through Expenditure Finance
Committee38 (EFC). On the proposal of the Government Departments, the EA
is required to prepare Preliminary Estimates (PE)/Detailed Estimates (DE)
and submit it to the Project Formulation and Appraisal Division (PFAD)39 for
screening of the projects. The PFAD after screening is required to send the
PE/DE to EFC for its approval. EFC is responsible40 for examination and
approval of the projects mainly with regard to necessity, expediency,
justification, financial and technical aspects. After approval of EFC, the
Administrative Departments accord Administrative approval and issue
financial sanctions of the project. EA executes the projects only after
obtaining Administrative approval, financial sanctions and receipt of requisite
funds from the Government Department. EA is required to exercise cost
control as prescribed in its working manual.
Failure of EFC in discharging its responsibilities
2.2.9 EA through concerned Departments sent (September 2007 to January
2011) 38 estimates (Appendix-10) for four Memorials viz., Samajik
Parivartan Sthal, Smarak Sthal, Eco Garden and Bauddh Vihar to EFC for
38
39
40
Chairman: Principal Secretary/Secretary, Finance Department; Members: 1. Principal Secretary/Secretary

Planning Department 2. Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Environment 3. Principal
Secretary/Secretary of the Administrative Department 4. Engineer-in-Chief of PWD or his representative, not
below the rank of Executive Engineer; Member Secretary: Director, PFAD; Special Invitee: Managing
Director of the concerned construction agency.
The Secretariat of the Expenditure Finance Committee.
In terms of Government Order of 3 April 1996 read with order of 24 July 1998
27
evaluation. We noticed that EFC failed to discharge its duties in respect of all
the four projects as discussed below:
x It did not examine the necessity and expediency aspects of the projects and
cited that necessary approvals were already accorded by Administrative
Departments; hence, it had not commented on these aspects.
x It did not examine the proposed quantities and stated that the works
proposed in the projects were of special nature and involved excessive
ornamental work; hence, the quantities proposed in the estimates had been
kept unchanged and only the rates had been examined.
PFAD/EFC stated (December 2013) that proposals were sent by the
concerned Department after examination of necessity and expediency aspect
at their own level and the works were approved by PFAD/EFC keeping in
view the urgency and priority of the projects. Further, due to special nature of
work, the calculation of quantity was not possible at PFAD level.
The reply is not acceptable as PFAD/EFC being an expert body which
examines and approves such projects cannot abdicate its responsibility on the
ground of special nature of the works. Moreover, it was not the first time
such memorials41 with special nature of work were constructed in the state.
Urgency and priority does not imply there should not be a complete
examination of the proposals. Moreover the fact that there were an average of
eight revisions of estimates per project in a span of 16 to 34 months approved
by the EFC which indicates lack of thorough examination by the EFC.
Enormous hike in project outlay
2.2.10 The outlay of the projects from the month of commencement to its
completion is depicted in the table below:
Table 2.3: Details showing initial and final sanctioned cost, hike in
project outlay and expenditure incurred for the projects
Sl.
No.
Particulars
1.
Initial sanctioned cost

(` in crore)
Final sanctioned cost
(` in crore)
Percentage increase
over the initial
sanction
Expenditure incurred
as on January 2014
(` in crore)
2.
3.
4.
Samajik
Parivartan
Sthal
366.83
Smarak
Sthal
Bauddh
Vihar
Eco
Garden
Prerna
Sthal
Total
254.17
80.68
157.47
84.5842
943.73
1362.62
742.45
458.76
1075.63
918.55
4558.01
271.46
192.11
468.62
583.07
986.03
382.98
1320.66
716.28
393.02
1057.83
685.78
4173.57
(Source: Compiled from the records of EA)
From table above, it is clear that the original sanctioned outlay of ` 943.73
crore for all these projects were revised finally to ` 4,558.01 crore with hikes
ranging from 192 to 986 per cent during the period of construction from
October 2007 to November 2011.
Excess expenditure due to imprudent financial management
2.2.11 We noticed various instances of excess expenditure incurred by the
EA due to imprudent financial management as discussed below:
41
42
The work of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Smarak began in 1995.

Being the value of first sanctioned estimate for the construction of boundary wall of the project
28
The EA did not ensure award of work at approved rates in case of 211
items of work pertaining to 170 agreements, resulting in excess payment
of ` 8.71 crore to 83 contractors.
After this being pointed put by Audit, EA recovered ` 6.80 crore and
assured (September 2013) to recover remaining amount (Appendix-11)
after verifying the same.
The EA approved (8 November 2007 and 10 October 2007) the rates of
two items43 of work higher than the lowest quotations obtained, resulting
in an excess expenditure ` 9.2844 lakh.
In reply EA assured to recover excess payment of ` 9.28 lakh.
The EA executed three items of work at the higher rates by extending the
contracted quantity in three existing agreements instead of entering into
fresh agreements at the prevailing lower rates, resulting in excess
expenditure of ` 16.96 lakh.
On this being pointed put by Audit, EA recovered ` 16.96 lakh from the
contractors.
The EA awarded works at higher rates for 33 items in 15 agreements by
pre-dating the agreements to a date when rates were higher, resulting in
extra expenditure of ` 68.81 lakh.
On these being pointed out by Audit, EA recovered ` 18.57 lakh and
stated that recovery of remaining amount (Appendix-12) could not be
made since work got completed before the revision of rates.
Different rates were awarded for supply of Bottle Palm, Cycas Revoluta
and Date Palm plants of same size during the same period resulting in
excess expenditure of ` 86.91 lakh.
On this being pointed out by Audit, EA recovered ` 25.85 lakh and was
silent regarding the remaining amount of ` 61.06 lakh (Appendix-13).
Excess/avoidable payment of taxes and non-deduction of VAT at source
2.2.12 The EA made excess/avoidable payment of taxes and failed to deduct
Value Added Tax (VAT) at source as summarised in the table below:
Table 2.4: Audit observations on tax issues
Sl. No.
Audit observation
1.
Avoidable payment of value added tax:
In works contract, EA did not
separately pay VAT on material
portion45 and Service Tax on labour
portion which resulted in the extra
expenditure of ` 1.72 crore.
Non deduction of VAT at source:
EA failed to deduct VAT at source of
` 3.64 crore as per section 34(1) of
VAT Act though it made a payment of
` 90.94 crore towards work contracts.
This omission attracts liability for
payment of penalty of twice the TDS
not deducted under section 34(8) of
VAT Act.
43
44
45
Reply/Remarks
EA stated (September 2013) that bronze items
such as statues, fountains, deep malas and pillar
capitals were taken through supply orders and
were bought out items, therefore, UP VAT was
paid on the total price and no tax was deducted at
source. NOIDA supported (January 2014) the
reply of EA.
The reply is not acceptable as all these works
pointed out by us were not mere supply of the
items but involved supply and installation or
supply and fabrication at site.
Further no reply was given for non deduction of
TDS.
For supply and fixing of granite free standing columns, rates were approved at ` 7,730 per cft though lowest
quotation was ` 7,700 per cft. For supply and fixing of bronze work in domes and fountains, rates were
approved at ` 1,110 per kg though lowest quotation was ` 1,100 per Kg.
` 2.18 lakh on execution of 7,250.02 cft granite work and ` 7.10 lakh on purchase of 63,064 Kg bronze work.
As per rule 9 of UP VAT Rules
29
Sl. No.
Audit observation
2.
Payment of VAT at higher rate:
The EA procured various items46 listed
in Schedule II of the VAT Act wherein
VAT rate was defined as 4 per cent.
The VAT was however paid to
suppliers at the rate of 12.5 per cent
instead of at four per cent resulting
excess payment of VAT ` 76.94 lakh to
the suppliers
3.
Irregular payment of Service tax:

Construction of the Memorials was of
monumental and cultural in nature and
not intended for commerce or industry,
hence, Service Tax was not applicable;
even then, Service Tax of ` 1.56 crore
was paid on various items47 for three
works48.
Reply/Remarks
On being pointed out by the Audit, EA recovered
an amount of ` 7.31 lakh. For remaining amount
of ` 69.63 lakh (Appendix-14), it stated
(September 2013) that stainless steel items/cuplock
pipes were fabricated items and hence tax was paid
at the rate of 12.5 per cent..
The reply is not acceptable as the items we have
commented upon are listed in Schedule II of the
VAT Act on which tax was payable at the rate of
four per cent only.
EA stated (September 2013) that in some specific
cases Service Tax was paid as they were
classifiable under erection, commissioning and
installation service. Further, the matter was
referred to service tax authorities which replied
that the service tax was payable.
The reply is not acceptable as the cases pointed
out by us were classifiable as construction of
monuments
and
not
under
erection,
commissioning and installation service. Further,
the case referred to service tax Department was
for pumping of RMC and not relevant to the
points raised by us.
Planning
Selection of Consultants
2.2.13 Office Memorandum49 of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
provides (25 November 2002) that the selection of the consultant should be
made in a transparent manner through competitive bidding.
We observed that selection of consultants for comprehensive Consultancy and
Architectural Services was not made through competitive bidding in
accordance with CVC Guidelines in four projects50 (Appendix-15).
EA stated (September 2013) that selection of consultant was done by LDA in
case of Smarak Sthal and DoI in case of Baudhh Vihar. Selection for
remaining project was done at the level of Headquarter of EA. NOIDA stated
(January 2014) that EA has clarified the issue. Lucknow Development
Authority (LDA) submitted (September 2013) to consider the reply of EA.
The fact remains that selection in the four projects was made in disregard to
CVC guidelines.
Shortcomings in payments made to the consultants
2.2.14 The EA incurred expenditure of ` 42.09 crore on consultancy as
detailed in Appendix-15. We noticed various shortcomings in payments made
to the consultants as discussed below:
x Payment51 of ` 6.08 crore was made without entering into agreements.
x
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
No clause in the consultancy agreements of Samajik Parivartan Sthal,

Smarak Sthal and Prerna Sthal specified lower rate of fee52 payable in
Flats, angles, plates and rods of stainless steel, RCC pipe and collars, MS pipe and Pipes.
Waterproofing and longevity treatment, Fixing of laminated glass, Providing and applying of Geo-Textile, Core
cutting of main hole on boundary wall, Drilling and core cutting, Laying of pipes, Concrete cutting and breaking
work, Erection of dome/vaults and Pouring of protekta flexpoint works.
Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Smarak Sthal and Prerna Sthal.
No. OFF 1 CTE 1.
Smarak Sthal, Eco Garden, Bauddh Vihar and Prerna Sthal.
` 4.62 crore to Architect Bureau and ` 1.46 crore to Design Associates.
The EA normally pays 0.25 per cent of the cost for repetitive works.
30
case of repetitive53 nature of work. In absence of such clause,

Consultants were paid at the full rate of 1.50 per cent. This resulted in
excess payment of ` 1.74 crore (Appendix-16) to the Consultants in
case of these memorials.
x As per Para 554 of the consultancy agreements of Smarak Sthal, cost of
project to calculate the consultant fee shall be the sanctioned cost of
the project by the GoUP after deduction of prescribed items. The EA
failed to make relevant deductions in calculation of the project cost of
Smarak Sthal by ` 38.13 crore, which resulted in excess payment of
` 0.57 crore to the consultants.
The EA revised the fee payable to architects in case of Eco garden and Prerna
Sthal based on the audit observations and reduced expenditure of ` 0.95 crore
towards fee. For the remaining projects, EA stated (September 2013) that no
work of repetitive nature was there and it has correctly calculated the fee. The
reply is not acceptable as the works we have pointed out are of repetitive
nature. Further computation of architectural fee made by EA did not have
deductions as per Para 5 of the consultancy agreements.
Incorporation of additional works
2.2.15 The projects were never conceived as a whole; rather additional works
were added in several phases from time to time. The Departments, EA and the
Consultants failed to properly conceptualise the project at the start of the work
on the projects resulting in additions of new works in all the five memorials
during execution phases of works as detailed below:
Table 2.5: Details showing project-wise additions of work and increase in
financial outlay
(` in crore)
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Name of Memorials
No. of new works added
Samajik Parivartan Sthal

Smarak Sthal
Eco Garden
Bauddh Vihar
Prerna Sthal
11
8
3
8
19
Total
Financial outlay of
additions
957.99
449.48
918.16
378.08
833.97
3537.68
(Source: Compiled from information furnished by EA)
Department of Irrigation (DoI) accepted (November 2013) that due to

incorporation of additional works, seven revisions were made. Housing and
Urban Planning Department (HUPD) stated (December 2013) that due to
incorporation of new works, revisions were made. NOIDA stated (January
2014) that new works were added according to the requirements. Department
of Culture (DoC) did not offer (October 2013) specific comment.
Changes in drawings and designs
2.2.16 The planning aspect of the projects was largely consultant-driven and
there were frequent amendments in the drawings and designs of the projects
and many of these amendments entailed dismantling/demolition of structures
53
54
Work where a standardised drawing prepared for one is used for other work also. In these projects, Boundary
wall, Ashokan column, Bronze fountains, etc were identified as repetitive work.
Para 5 of other consultancy agreements (where fee was payable at the rate of 1.5 per cent of project cost)
provided for deduction of following items from the sanctioned cost to arrive at the project cost: Contingency
charges sanctioned, Centage charges/supervision charges sanctioned, Payment allowed for external power,
connection, sewerage, water supply, etc and development authority to sanction the corporation maps etc. and
any type of eligible taxes as applicable and any other payment made directly to Government agency. The above
project cost should not exceed the sanctioned cost at any condition, Cost of earth filling required as sanctioned
by EFC and any other items sanctioned for which architectural services are not required/approved.
31
that were recently constructed which led to infructuous expenditure of ` 29.62

crore as depicted in table given below:
Table 2.6: Details showing infructuous expenditure due to change in
drawing and design
Name of the
Project
Period of
construction
Period of
dismantling
(1)
(2)
(3)
Samajik
Parivartan
Sthal
Smarak Sthal
October 2007
to April 2010
April 2008 to
March 2009
April 2008 to
July 2011
July 2008 to
August 2009
Eco Garden
BauddhVihar
PrernaSthal
N.A.
(` in crore)
Infructuous
expenditure
Construction
Cost of items
dismantled
(4)
Cost of
material
recovered
(5)
Cost of
dismantling
June 2008 to
August 2010
12.69
4.33
0.99
(7)
(Col. 4 - Col. 5 +
Col. 6)
9.35
April 2008 to
March 2011
April 2010 to
March 2012
January 2009
to February
2011
July 2008 to
October 2009
13.88
5.04
2.49
11.33
2.52
0.13
0.78
3.17
4.93
1.29
0.71
4.35
2.98
1.57
0.01
1.42
Total
(Source: Compiled from the information furnished by the EA)
(6)
29.62
Thus, due to lack of proper planning infructuous expenditure of ` 29.62 crore

was incurred. This also indicates ineffective utilisation of the fund and lack of
monitoring by the Departments/EA.
DoI accepted (November 2013) that frequent changes were made in the
drawing/design of the work of Bauddh Vihar. HUPD stated that (December
2013) that the EA proposed additional work citing the orders of higher
authorities. The above replies endorse our finding of lack of planning.
Avoidable expenditure due to re-execution of work
2.2.17 During audit we noticed various instances of re-execution of works due
to improper planning of works which resulted in extra expenditure of ` one
crore as discussed below:
x
In Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Lucknow, the EA re-executed (November

2008 to August 2009) the work of 40 mm granite flooring at a cost of
` 0.44 crore as repair work due to damage caused by movement of heavy
vehicles at Fore court area which could have been avoided by planning the
flooring work after completion of other works for which movement of
heavy vehicles were required.
HUPD accepted (November 2013) that flooring was damaged due to
movement of heavy vehicle and no further comment was possible on the
issue.
In Prerna Sthal, Noida, the EA dismantled 3,761.84 cft Mirzapur sandstone

boundary wall to construct an additional entrance gate due to change in
design. Out of the total dismantled material, it reused 1410.72 cft stone
and rest remained unutilised besides avoidable cost of dismantling (` 7.56
lakh) and labour cost on refixing of stone (` 15.05 lakh).
NOIDA endorsed (January 2014) the reply of EA, which stated
(September 2013) that only 838.73 cft boundary wall was dismantled for
construction of entrance gate as it was sanctioned at a later date and
remaining quantity was dismantled in compliance of the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The reply confirms that dismantling of boundary wall for
32
gate was avoidable by proper planning of the construction of the Gate and
other dismantling was caused by the initial violation of the environmental
rules, which were subsequently enforced by the Honble Court.
x
In Prerna Sthal, Noida, the EA constructed a boundary wall with an

expenditure of ` 37.04 lakh measuring 2,849.55 cft. The constructed
boundary wall was dismantled (November 2008) due to change in
drawings by the Consultants of the project and a new boundary wall was
constructed as per revised drawings at a cost of ` 37.04 lakh without reusing the dismantled sandstone boundary wall. Thus due to non-firming up
of the drawings and designs before construction, avoidable expenditure of
` 33.62 lakh55 was incurred.
NOIDA accepted (January 2014) that the boundary wall was dismantled
due to change in layout.
Execution of the projects

2.2.18 Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) while sanctioning the estimates
(September 2007 to January 2011) recommended that all works related to
stone/marble, statues, elephants, pedestals etc. shall be carried out by the
administrative Department/EA at their own responsibility with minimum rates
and for minimum requirement under the relevant financial rules.
We noticed that the recommendations of EFC were not adhered to in
execution of the projects mainly due to lack of supervision and monitoring at
the level of Government Departments/EA. This resulted in uneconomic and
inefficient execution of works caused by incorrect rate analysis, award of
higher rates for civil, electrical and horticulture works and art works for
bronze murals, fountain etc. as discussed in succeeding paragraphs.
Dismantling of pre-existing structures
2.2.19 EFC recommended (September 2007 to June 2010) that
Administrative Department shall ensure deposit of the value of scrap material
obtained during dismantling in treasury, after deciding their depreciated value
or the possibilities of the re-use of the scrap of material.
Commencement of construction activities of four of memorials of Lucknow
entailed dismantling of pre-existing structures at the premises to clear the site
for the projects. Details of dismantled structures and expenditure incurred
thereon are given in the Appendix-17.
As can be seen from the Appendix-17:
x In contravention of the recommendations made by EFC, neither the
administrative Department nor EA kept proper records of re-use and value
of scrap materials retrieved from dismantling in all the four Memorials
except deposit (15 May 2010) of a sum of ` 61 lakh.
For Eco Garden, EA stated (September 2013) that all the usable materials
were taken away by the Department of Jails (DoJ) except scrap which was
sold by the EA. Department of Jails (DoJ) rejected (October 2013) the
contention of EA and stated that EA was responsible for disposal of scrap
and to maintain its records.
The replies are contradictory and not acceptable as post facto approval
accorded by the DoJ prescribed responsibility of Director General,
Karagar, DoJ to ensure record/accounts with the help of EA.
55
Cost of construction (` 37.04 lakh) + Cost of dismantling (` 0.85 lakh) - Cost of waste stone (` 4.27 lakh)
33
For Bauddh Vihar, which was constructed by dismantling Parikalp Nagar,

Department of Irrigation (DoI) accepted (November 2013) that all
buildings of Parikalp Nagar were safe and had not completed their useful
life and dismantling of these buildings resulted in loss of ` 118.47 crore
excluding cost of land. Further, the act of dismantling was also found
ultra-vires and inappropriate by a committee56 set up to examine the same.
EA stated that disposal of scrap was not done by it. The reply confirms
that proper procedures were not followed.
For Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Housing and Urban Planning Department
(HUPD) stated (December 2013) that the scrap material were un-usable
hence, it was used in filling. Reply is not acceptable as no documentary
support regarding location where filling was done and volume of filling
done was provided.
x
In Eco Garden and Bauddh Vihar, dismantling was done on the written
instruction (28 August 2009 and 21 November 2008) of the
Administrative Department; formal procedures such as administrative and
financial sanctions were not followed and necessary sanctions/approval
have also not been obtained so far (February 2014).
For Eco Garden, DoJ stated (October 2013) that sanctions was not given
as Director General, Karagar did not make available all records as desired
by the Government. For Bauddh Vihar, DoI stated (November 2013) that
the act of dismantling was found ultra-vires and inappropriate by a
committee set up to examine the same. EA stated (September 2013) that
dismantling was done as per instruction of the client and efforts for receipt
of sanctions and funds are made. The reply confirms our observation.
We further noticed the following:

x
In follow up of EFC directions (27 March 2008) HUPD constituted (28

April 2008) a Technical Committee (TC) to finalise the rates of
dismantling of old buildings to commence construction of gallery in
Samajik Parivartan Sthal. EA submitted quotations received from three
parties57 to the TC which approved (29 April 2008) the lowest quoted
rates of Maglink Infra Projects (P) Limited (MIPPL) for ` 2.10 crore.
We observed that even prior to submission of quotations to TC, the EA
issued (24 April 2008) Letter of Intent (LoI) to MIPPL. Further, District
Magistrate, Lucknow had issued (26 April 2008) permission order58 for
dismantling through explosive to MIPPL, even before formation of the
TC. This indicates that formation of TC was a formality in view of the fact
that party and rates had already been finalised. Further more, as the
blasting was done during 21 April to 15 May 2008, it clearly shows that
the work was started even prior to issue of LoI. This indicates the failure
of monitoring and supervision by the HUPD.
EA confirmed the facts and stated (September 2013) that seeing the
urgency of work and lowest quotation of MIPPL, work was awarded to
them and no financial irregularity was caused. HUPD did not furnish
(December 2013) any reason for issue of LoI without prior approval of the
rates by the TC set up by HUPD.
56
57
58
S.A.T. Rizvi Committee.

Maglink Infra Project (P) Limited, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu (MIPPL), Deluxe Earthmovers and Contractors and Sri
Vari Construction Company
Issued by Office of the District Magistrate, Lucknow under rule 155 (8) (ii) of the Explosive Rules, 1983
34
Civil and Stone works

Formation of High Level Committee for fixation of rates
2.2.20 On the recommendations (10 September 2007) of the EFC, the HUPD
ordered59 (4 October 2007) LDA (the nodal agency) and EA to constitute a
High Level Committee (HLC) for deciding rates of various stone works for
which rates were not available in the Schedule of Rates (SOR). Similarly, the
EFC/GoUP also recommended60 for formation of HLC for approval of rates
for other projects at Lucknow by other concerned Departments.
In compliance to the order of the GoUP, an HLC61 was constituted (25
October 2007) to which LDA also nominated (31 October 2007) its
representatives. The concerned Project Managers of units of the EA were
required to conduct detailed market survey for works of special nature and
submit survey reports to HLC for taking appropriate action thereafter.
Further, Para 102 A of the Working manual of EA provides that all Project
Managers of units in the city and an accounts man nominated by the Financial
Advisor of the UPRNN shall be the members of Joint Purchase Committee.
Based on the quotations obtained, the Committee of the Project Managers of
the EA recommended (8 November 2007) final rates for 20 items of stone
works which were approved (14 November 2007) by the HLC.
We noticed that:
x The Departments except HUPD did not form any HLC.
x In addition to the above 20 items, the rates for 365 items for all four
projects at Lucknow were decided62 by EA at its own level, without
obtaining approval of HLC. Thus, there was total abdication of
responsibilities by HLC which was not functional after one meeting (14
November 2007). The HUPD did not monitor the work of HLC. The EA
finalised the rates of various items at higher rates due to failure to obtain
competitive rates and deficient analysis of rates etc. as discussed in
subsequent paragraphs.
x The committee of the EA did not have members of Accounts/Finance
wing. Therefore, the rates remained un-vetted by the finance wing.
HUPD stated (December 2013) that there was no need for further approval of
rates from HLC as the lower market rates/scheduled rates were available later
on. The EA accepted (September 2013) that approval of HLC was not sought
and works were done in accordance with its working manual. DoI accepted
(November 2013) that no HLC was formed by it and stated that approval of
rates from competent authority was responsibility of EA.
The replies are not acceptable as in the instant cases, it was obligatory to
make the HLC and take its approval for all rates till they were included in the
Scheduled rates.
Finalisation of higher rates
2.2.21 Construction of the memorials involved massive expenditure and the
procedure63 prescribed in Para 102A and 103 of the working manual of the
59
60
61
62
63
Vide order no. 4004/]-1-07-50 f..f. dated 4 October 2007.

Vide order nos. 4232/]/-1-07-71 /07-. 4 dated 2 November 2007; 718/]-27--04-03- Q)
/08 dated 22 February 2008.
Members: Financial Advisor, General Manager (Technical), General Manager (Sodic),General Manager
(Central Zone), Concerned Unit in charge (as presenter) of EA along with Authorised representative of LDA
During 10 October 2007 to 25 April 2011
By shortlisting suppliers/contractors through publication of advertisement/notice in newspapers.
35
EA was to be followed to execute the works in the most economic manner by

obtaining competitive rates.
We noticed that the laid down procedure was not followed while finalising the
rates of 365 items out of total 385 items test checked by us. The EA finalised
the rates by obtaining limited quotations without proper advertisements in the
newspapers. Besides, other actions of EA, such as, award of work to firms64
who did not quote the rates, non award of work to firms65 quoting lowest rates
(L-1) in some cases etc. were non-transparent and arbitrary leading to failure
of the EA in generating competition.
Further, the EA prepared analysis of rates to justify the rates approved by it
which were deficient66 as discussed in detail in Appendix-18, which resulted
in wrong analysis of rates. A comparison of the rates approved by the EA and
the rates arrived at by Audit after removal of the said deficiencies, revealed
that even the lowest rates approved by EA67 were higher by 9.51 per cent to
56.50 per cent as detailed in Appendix-19.
Thus, failure to generate adequate competition led to receipt of higher rates
which were not detected due to incorrect analysis of the obtained rates. This
resulted in award of works at higher rates which led to excess expenditure of
` 397.90 crore (Appendix-20).
EA stated (September 2013) that the Purchase Committee used to decide
lowest rates and not vendor concerned. Further, in most cases work were
awarded to lowest bidder but in few cases it was given to other contractors
only after making an assessment of capability of lowest bidder to manage the
quantum of work in time. The rates approved were also lower than the
UPPWD SOR rates of January 2009. The analysis of rates were not the
criterion for deciding the rates of actual execution of work, which were
decided on the basis of quotations and market survey.
The reply is not acceptable as it does not address the reasons for not following
the prescribed procedure to obtain most economical rates through open
advertisements. Moreover, the incorrect analysis of the obtained rates also
contributed to finalisation of higher rates. Further, despite the fact that EA
ignored the HLC and finalised the rates at its own level, the HUPD and other
Departments failed to monitor the same and ensure execution of the works at
minimum rates despite specific directions of the EFC.
Excess expenditure due to delayed differentiation in rates
2.2.22 The EA approved same rate and awarded work for two different
features of a work viz, coffee brown granite and white galaxy granite work in
Granite columns works; carved portion and uncarved portion in Boundary
wall work; red stone and pink stone in case of Bansi Paharpur stone work.
Later on the rates for coffee brown granite work, uncarved portion in
boundary wall and Bansi Paharpur red sand stone work were segregated and
rates for these were fixed at lower side than the white galaxy granite work,
carved boundary wall and Bansi Paharpur pink sand stone.
64
65
66
67
Example: Chinamay Constructions, Anchor Constructions, G.K. Tiles and Marbles KTS Associates Marble
Centre, Wood workers Pragati Infra Promoters etc.
M/s Raj Kamal Marbles Granite free standing columns; Super stone constructions 15 ft. high Mirzapur
sandstone elephant sculptures; Gem Granite Granite boundary wall and Granite in fountain; J.P. Stone 850
mm Mirzapur sandstone Jalebi pattern railing.
Excess wastage was allowed, basic rates of stones were higher, Items not required such as cost of thermocol
were included, Freight charges were higher due to application of incorrect conversion factor and volumetric
weight, calculation errors etc., for detail please refer to Appendix-18.
For projects at Lucknow
36
We noticed that, the EA did not segregate the works having two different
features for eight to 37 months and made payment on the awarded higher rates
of composite features. This lapse of not fixing rates based on different
features, led to the excess expenditure of ` 18.41 crore as discussed in
Appendix-21.
EA stated (September 2013) that earlier it could not be visualised that
differential rates were possible for and accordingly composite rate were
decided by the High Level Committee (HLC), but later on with execution of
work over a logical period, it was felt more logical to obtain separate offers
for differentiated features. The EA, however, recovered ` 0.08 crore in case
of granite column works on being pointed out by Audit.
The reply confirms award of works at composite rates but is not acceptable as
the EA is a specialised construction agency with requisite experience and
knowledge of executing similar works.
Enhancement in the rate of granite flooring
2.2.23 The EA approved (16 February 2009) the rates for ivory fantasy
granite flooring (40 mm) and Kanakpura multi-red granite flooring at ` 5,850
per sqm and ` 5,400 per sqm respectively which were subsequently revised
(12 August 2010) to ` 5,450/5,300 per sqm. Thereafter, the EA citing
difficulties in getting the work done at the revised rates, again restored
(24 September 2010) the original rates of ` 5,850/5,400 per sqm.
Para 119 of the Working Manual of EA provides that, it is essential for a
purchase committee deciding about a rate, to enquire rate/rates of similar
items being allowed in other units in the vicinity, and after that only to finalise
its decision. We noticed that the EA did not fix the rates after considering the
prevailing rates in all the Units of Lucknow as required in the aforesaid para
of the Working Manual. We also found that, out of total nine units68 of
Lucknow, four units69 executed 4,220.10sqm same granite flooring work at
the rate of ` 5,450/5,300 per sqm against 18 agreements made after 24
September 2010. From these rates it is clear that the lower rate of
` 5,450/5,300 per sqm was workable. Thus, despite same work being done at
the lower rates in many units, EA did not follow the provisions of the
Working Manual and unnecessarily restored the original higher rate. This led
to excess expenditure of ` 20.31 lakh on execution of 5,199.46 sqm granite
flooring.
EA stated (September 2013) that the quantum of work was very huge and it
was very difficult for contractors to execute the works on reduced rates. The
reply is not acceptable as, even after restoration of the rates; out of 15
contractors, nine contractors executed the work at ` 5,450/5,300 per sqm, four
contractors worked at enhanced rate of ` 5,850/ 5,400 per sqm and two
contractors simultaneously worked in one unit at lower rate and in another
unit at higher rate.
Incorrect fixation of rates for Solakunda multi-red granite flooring
2.2.24 We noticed that the same rates i.e. ` 5,150 per cft, for supply and
fixing of granite70 in kerb stone and steps works for both Solakunda multi-red
68
69
70
Unit-19, Balrampur Hospital Unit, Medical College Kannauj (NR) Unit, Lohia-2 Unit, LMI Unit, Pratapgarh
Unit, MKRSS (Entrance Plaza) Unit, CSA Kanpur Unit and Eco Park Unit-II.
Pratapgarh Unit, MKRSS (Entrance Plaza) Unit, CSA Kanpur Unit and Eco Park Unit-II.
Rates approved on 16 February 2009.
37
granite and Kanakpura multi-red granite were fixed. We noticed that for
flooring work, the rate of Solakunda multi-red granite and Kanakpura multired granite was different i.e ` 5850 per sqm and ` 5,400 per sqm respectively.
Since the composite rate for supply and fixing of both Solakunda multi-red
granite and Kanakpura multi-red granite was same in case of kerb stone work
and steps work, approving a higher rate by ` 450 per sqm71 for flooring for
Solakunda multi-red granite flooring was incorrect. The higher rate resulted in
extra expenditure of ` 17.94 lakh in execution of 3,987.456 sqm flooring of
Solakunda multi-red granite.
EA stated (September 2013) that the rates were decided after detailed market
survey and on the basis of offers received. The reply is not acceptable as the
EA despite being a technical agency, did not detect the difference in flooring
rates received and did not obtain and award same rates of flooring for both
stones.
Thus, due to inaction of High Level Committee (HLC), the rates were decided
by the EA at higher side resulting in increase in project cost as discussed in
paragraphs 2.2.21 to 2.2.24.
Excess payment on Bansi Paharpur sandstone works in dry cladding
2.2.25 In Prerna Sthal, Noida, EA had decided (19 March 2009) that rates of
Bansi Paharpur sandstone works at Noida shall be ` 100 per cft below than
the rates approved at Lucknow as the distance from Bansi Paharpur to
Lucknow was longer than the distance from Bansi Paharpur to Noida. The
rates of supply and fixing of Bansi Paharpur sandstone in dry cladding at
Lucknow were ` 107672 per cft. Accordingly, the rates for Noida should have
been ` 976 per cft. Instead the rates paid were ` 2400/2550 per cft in Noida.
We noticed that the units (PMC-2 and Noida Unit-2) of EA at Noida paid
higher rates which led to excess expenditure of ` 2.83 crore as detailed below:
Table 2.7: Details of excess expenditure due to payment of works at
higher rates
Name of the item
Rates at
Lucknow
(` per cft
rate)
Rates to be
paid by
Units at
Noida
( ` per cft)
1
Providing and fixing of
Bansi Paharpur sandstone in
dry cladding
1076 73
976
Rates
actually
paid by
Units at
Noida
( ` per
cft)
5
2400
2550
Total
Higher
rates
awarded
(per cent )
(5)*100/(4)
Qty.
executed
(cft)
Excess
payment
(` in
crore)
8= (5-4) x
7
6
245.90
7
15853.91
261.27
3592.58
0.57
19446.49
2.83
2.26
EA stated (September 2013) that the rates of ` 2,400/2,550 per cft were paid
for dry cladding with intricate carving. The reply is not acceptable as the
measurements recorded by units were for plain cladding and not for intricate
carving.
Purchase of Mirzapur sandstone
2.2.26 The EA finalised (18 July 2007) rates for rough size Mirzapur
sandstone at ` 150 per cft for the projects of Lucknow which were applicable
71
72
73
Solakunda multi-red granite ` 5850 per sqm - Kanakpura multi-red granite ` 5,400 per sqm = ` 450 per sqm.
1 sqm of 50 mm thick cladding = 1.7657 cft cladding; considering the rate of ` 1,900 per sqm for 50 mm thick
cladding, the per cft rate comes to ` 1,076 per cft.
Arrived at on the basis of rate of ` 1,900 per sqm for providing and fixing of Bansi Paharpur sandstone in 50 mm
cladding at height above 3 ft.
38
upto February 2009. During the same period it procured dressed size/cut-size
of Mirzapur sandstone for Prerna Sthal, Noida at the same rate.
The procurement of rough size and cut size Mirzapur sandstone at the same
rates during the same period was unjustified 74 and led to an extra expenditure
of ` 16.1175 crore.
EA stated (September 2013) that initially there was no infrastructure available
at Mirzapur and nearby areas and only rough blocks were available at
Mirzapur, hence, the rates for rough size blocks was decided. It further stated
that as regards procurement of cut size stone by units at Prerna Sthal, the
circumstances would be different as no cut size stone was available at
Mirzapur when stone was purchased at Lucknow. The reply is not acceptable
as the rough sized and cut sized stones for Lucknow and Noida were
purchased during the same period. There is no justification for buying rough
sized stones at same price as cut sized stone. Since the period is the same, and
stones were procured from Mirzapur in both cases, the contention of the EA
that the circumstances are different also does not hold good.
Award of work to non-empanelled firms for stone works
2.2.27 The EA had shortlisted (10 September 2007) only six firms for
execution of Stone work but the stone works were got executed by 246
contractors76. The value of stone works executed was ` 994.17 crore. We
noticed following deficiencies in the execution of stone works:
x
Though six firms were shortlisted, works of ` 331.93 crore were awarded
to five firms only.
Works amounting to ` 3.38 crore were executed by two 77 contractors who

were disqualified during shortlisting.
Works amounting to ` 658.87 crore were executed by 239 contractors

who did not participate in shortlisting process done by the EA and
therefore their credentials were not verified by the EA.
Thus, only 33.38 per cent of the total stone works amounting to ` 331.93
crore, were executed by 5 contractors who were shortlisted by the EA
indicating work was randomly awarded to the contractors and not on the basis
of their competence and experience.
EA stated (September 2013) that due to huge quantum of work; it was not
possible to get the work done through the six shortlisted firms. The reply is
not acceptable as EA could have short listed additional firms after following
due procedure.
Excess payment for supply of Ready Mix Concrete
2.2.28 The EA entered (21 January 2008) into an agreement with Ambalika
Constructions, for installation of a Batching Plant78 at the site of Smarak Sthal
to produce Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). The provisions of agreement,
74
75
76
77
78
As the wastage in case of rough size blocks was 47.44 per cent as compared to negligible 0.62 per cent in case
of cut size blocks.
For fixing of 927052.80 cft finished sand stone work, 1763782.50 cft Mirzapur rough size sandstone was used
instead of 932836.39 cft cut size sand stone. Thus 830946.11 cft rough size sand stone was excess purchased
and issued to the contractor resulting in loss of ` 16.11 crore as the rates of cut size and rough size stone were
same (i.e., ` 193.85 per cft)
As per information furnished by 17 units of the EA.
Goel Marbo Granite and G.M. Granite.
A batching plant also known as a concrete plant, is a device that combines various ingredients (such as sand,
water, stone aggregates, fly ash, potash etc) to form concrete.
39
deviation there from along with its impact have been shown in the table
below:
Table 2.8: Audit observations on violation of contractual provisions and
resultant excess expenditure
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
Provision of the Agreement
Audit Observation
The basic rate of RMC was decided

at the rates approved. In case of
supply of RMC from the batching
plant at site, five per cent of the rate
of RMC was to be paid additionally
for captive batching plant at site.
In 14 cases, payments were made for supply of RMC at

the rate higher than the rates approved by EA for the
period of supply. This resulted in excess payment of
` 3.98 lakh to the supplier. Further, Additional five per
cent amounting to ` 26.69 lakh in 24 cases was paid
despite the fact that RMC was not supplied through
captive plant installed at the site but through other
batching plant at far off site.
For procurement of RMC from other suppliers,
transportation charges were payable for a maximum
distance of 12 Kms. This limiting provision was not
incorporated in the agreement executed with Ambalika
Constructions. We noticed that transportation charges
were paid for up to 25 Km. Further, the contractor had
been submitting bills separately for RMC and
transportation. After cross checking and linking these
separate bills, we found that the contractors had charged
for excess quantity of RMC than actually supplied. This
coupled with payment of transportation charges for more
than 12 Kms and payment at higher rates than approved
by the EA resulted in excess expenditure of ` 18.83 lakh.
The rate for transportation of RMC

from captive batching plant to the
pouring point within campus was to
be paid at the rate of ` 83 per cum In
case of supply of RMC from any
batching plant other than the plant
installed at Site to the pouring point,
transportation charges was to be paid
at the rate of ` 17 per Km per cum
which was subsequently revised to
` 20 and ` 22 per Km per cum by the
EA in terms of price variation clause.
Thus, due to ignoring the contractual provisions an excess payment of

` 49.50 lakh was made.
EA stated (September 2013) that excess payments of ` 0.42 lakh have been
recovered. It further stated that as the requirement of RMC was huge,
additional five per cent was paid for supply from other plants being captive. It
also stated that the rates for cartage were approved without restriction of
distance.
The reply is not acceptable as contractual provisions were not adhered to.
Further, restriction of distance was made by the EA because quality of RMC
starts deteriorating after a certain time; hence it was not logical to relax the
restriction of distance for Ambalika constructions only.
Excess consumption of cement in preparation of RMC
2.2.29 Design mix concrete is preferred to nominal mix as by using design
mix concrete in place of nominal mix, cement consumption can be minimised
by controlling the water cement ratio. Further, design mix is mandatory for
concrete of above M-20 grade.
We noticed excess consumption of cement in preparation of RMC resulting in
extra expenditure of ` 2.74 crore as discussed below:
x
The EA prescribed (January 2009) consumption of cement for M-10, M-15

and M-20 grade RMC at 4.50 bags, 6.00 bags and 7.00 bags respectively
for per cum of RMC. We noticed that the EA failed to prescribe the norms
since beginning of the projects in October 2007 resulting in different units
issuing cement bags at varying rate. By not specifying the norms, an extra
expenditure of ` 49.97 lakh on issue of 28,074.46 bags (calculated at the
rate of ` 17879 per bag) during October 2007 to January 2009 in Samajik
Parivartan Sthal was incurred as detailed in table below:
79
Being the lowest rate at which cement was procured by the EA during the period October 2007 to January 2009.
40
Table 2.9: Details showing excess issue of cement bags

Grade of
EA norms
cement (January 2009)
for cement
consumption
(Bags/Cum)
M-10
4.5
M-15
6
M-20
Quantity
of RMC
procured
(Cum)
Actual issue Total issue Excess issue of bags,

Extra expenditure
of bags per of cement
had the EA norms
due to non specifying
cum of
(in bags)
spelt out since
the norms since
RMC (in
beginning of the
beginning
bags)
project. (in bags)
(Amount in `)
34462.98 4.5 - 6.12
180247.9
25164.50
4479281
1193.66
6 - 6.12
7200.96
39.00
6942
54301.45
7 - 8.16
382981.11
Total
2870.96
28074.46
511031
4997254
EA stated (September 2013) that there is no fix and universal norms for
using cement in RMC at all times because availability of grade of fine
aggregate and course aggregate differs from time to time and the cement
for making RMC was issued on the basis of cement used for making of
RMC at different times. The reply does not give reasons for not having
prescribed norms in time.
x
For M-25, M-30 and M-35 grade RMC, EA did not adhere to any design
mix and issued cement bags at varying rates i.e, 8 to 9.06 bags per cum for
M-25; 8.67 to 9 bags per cum for M-30; and 9.5 bags to 10.60 bags for M35 grade RMC. The failure of EA to prescribe consumption norms on the
basis of design mix resulted in excess expenditure of ` 1.94 crore
(calculated at the rate of ` 17880 per bag) on excess issue of 1,09,152
cement bags81 during the period October 2007 to October 2009.
EA stated (September 2013) that as per CPWD there is no fixed and
universal norms for using cement content in RMC at all times. The reply is
not acceptable as the CPWD norms for RMC works were in place and the
EA should have either followed CPWD norms or framed their own norms
for RMC works on the basis of design mix.
Expenditure on cultural ceremonies

2.2.30 Para 210 of the Working Manual of the EA prescribes that in case of
foundation and opening ceremonies the EA shall not incur expenditure of
more than ` 2500 in one function, if it is performed by a State Government
Chief Minister or Minister and ` 5000 in one case if it is performed by a
Governor, Central Government Minister or a high dignitary of that status.
We noticed that the EA incurred an expenditure of ` 4.25 crore on inaugural
and cultural ceremonies82organised (between 14 April 2008 and 14 October
2011) by it on various occasions. Out of above, an amount of ` 2.10 crore was
borne by the EA from its own sources, whereas an amount of ` 2.15 crore was
charged on the works. Expenditure of such a huge amount on inaugural and
cultural ceremonies is against the provisions of the Working manual of the
EA.
EA stated (September 2013) that it was asked to make suitable arrangement to
perform inaugural and cultural ceremonies organised on various occasions
through their respective clients/administration. Reply is not acceptable as EA
violated provisions of its own working manual by exceeding the laid down
limits and has borne expenditure of ` 2.10 crore from its own sources instead
of raising a demand for funds from the client Departments.
80
81
82
Being the lowest rate at which cement was procured by the EA during the period October 2007 to January 2009.
By using CPWD/DSR norms of cement consumption for M-25, M-30 and M-35 grade RMC at the norms of 7.6
bags, 8 bags and 8.4 bags respectively for per cum of RMC.
Tents, electrical arrangements, snacks and refreshments, decoration of site etc.
41
Irregularities in the Contract awarded for works in Eco Garden

2.2.31 The EA awarded (17 February 2010) the work83 for ` 251.53 crore to
BPR Infrastructure and Parmitha (Joint venture), Hyderabad (BPRIP) on item
rate basis. Out of the total work of ` 1,057.83 crore executed at Eco Garden,
works of ` 591.63 crore was executed by the EA Departmentally and works
of ` 466.2084 crore were executed by the BPRIP.
In respect of the aforesaid contract, we noticed the following deficiencies:
x The EA was executing similar work Departmentally in Eco Garden. Hence,
the rates of items were available with the EA prior to finalisation of the
tender as a yardstick for checking the reasonableness of the rates quoted by
BPRIP and as basis for negotiation with the lowest tenderer to obtain lower
rates in the tender.
We found that the rates paid to the BPRIP for 20 items were higher than
the rates earlier approved at which work was being executed. Lack of
prudence and due diligence prior to finalising the bid led to an undue
benefit to the Contractor and an extra expenditure of ` 18.37 crore on
execution of these items85 (Appendix-22).
EA stated (September 2013) that individual item rates of contract should
not be compared with other rates at which work was being done. Reply is
not acceptable as the contract was awarded on item rate basis indicated in
the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) and EA had not made any effort to bring down
the item rates of contract to the rates on which similar work was being
executed by the EA Departmentally as per its normal working procedures.
x The EA, besides the item-rate contract with BPRIP, was also
simultaneously executing work at Eco Garden. After award of item-rate
contract to BPRIP, the EA had options either to award the work through
BPRIP at the lower tendered rates or through other contractors at higher
rates approved by it. The tenets of economy of expenditure are clear and
the work should be executed at the lower of the two rates.
We found that the EA awarded four items of work to other contractors at
Departmentally approved higher rates, despite the rates tendered by the
BPRIP being lower. By getting the four items of work done at higher rates
the EA made an avoidable extra expenditure of ` 2.46 crore as detailed in
Appendix-23.
EA stated (September 2013) that the work mentioned by audit were of that
area which was not in the scope of BPRIP and was done separately by it on
Departmentally. Reply in not acceptable as the BOQ awarded to BPRIP
did not earmark any specific scope or physical area for execution of the
work.
x Clause 37.2.1 of the agreement with BPRIP provided that for new items of
works not covered in the agreement, latest rates available in the Uttar
Pradesh Public Works Department Schedule of Rates (UPPWD SOR), if
available were to be considered. Otherwise latest rates available in the
83
84
85
Civil, plumbing, water supply and sanitary works, sewerage, electrical services, stone works, landscape works,
horticulture and finishing work of Eco Garden
(` 350.75 crore for items included in the contract and ` 115.45 crore for additional/ extra items)
Further, as the contract was an item-rate contract the EA was not bound to get the work done by BPRIP at the
higher rates and it could have got the same done by other contractors as well according to its normal working
procedure.
42
Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) were to be considered. Further, if the items

of work were not available in both the Schedule of Rates, the analysed
rates were to be applied on the basis of market rates.
The EA awarded the work of providing and laying of RMC grade M-30
and M-15 from BPRIP as new items and paid at the rate of ` 6,375 per cum
and ` 5,700 per cum respectively. We noticed that the rates approved by
the EA was on higher side not only in comparison of UPPWD SOR but
were also higher than the rates of work already being executed i.e. ` 5,600
per cum for M 30 and ` 5,000 per cum for M 15 by other contractors at the
same site during the same period. Hence, there was no rationale to pay
higher rates to BPRIP which resulted in excess expenditure of ` 6.23
crore86.
EA stated (September 2013) that the rates were derived from the nearest
BOQ of M-25 so there is no excess expenditure. The reply is not
acceptable as the EA failed to award the work at the available lower M-15
and M-30 rates.
x The Letter of Intent (LoI) issued (12 February 2012) to BPRIP provided
grant of interest free mobilisation advance of 15 per cent of contract value
to the BPRIP.
We noticed that mobilisation advance of ` 41.73 crore was released to
BPRIP which was ` four crore higher than the prescribed limit87 which was
an undue benefit to BPRIP.
No reply on this issue was furnished by the Housing and Urban Planning
Department and EA.
Electrical Work
2.2.32 Supply and installation of electrical items at the projects involved an
outlay of ` 241.68 crore88 including expenditure of ` 61.33 crore89 on
purchase of imported luminaries/fixtures/fittings for lighting arrangement of
the projects.
We noticed following irregularities in procurement of electrical items:
x The EA approved (January 2008) rates of 26 items on overall comparison
basis90 to procure from Light Sound Image System (I) Private Limited
(LSI) for Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Lucknow. We noticed that rates quoted
by Edison Projects (P) Limited (EPPL) for 12 items were lower than the
rates quoted by LSI. However, the EA did not consider lowest quoted itemwise rates for the individual items and placed orders at higher item-wise
rates resulting in extra expenditure of ` 1.78 crore.
x Different rates (` 1.03 lakh per unit at Lucknow during January 2009 to
June 2010 and ` 0.71 lakh per unit at Noida during May 2010 to July 2010)
for an item (ING 8) resulted in extra expenditure of ` 56.09 lakh on
purchase of 156 such units.
EA stated (September 2013) that rates of the fittings cannot be compared as
the specification and brands of fittings at different units were different. The
reply is not acceptable as extra expenditure has been calculated by us only in
86
87
88
89
90
79,427 x (` 6,375 ` 5,600) + 999 x (` 5,700 ` 5,000)

` 37.73 crore, being 15 per cent of the contract value of ` 251.53 crore
Samajik Parivartan Sthal - ` 91.52 crore; Smarak Sthal - ` 38.13 crore; Eco Garden ` 46.80 crore; Bauddh
Vihar - ` 14.64 crore; Prerna Sthal - ` 50.59 crore
Samajik Parivartan Sthal - ` 30.28 crore; Smarak Sthal - ` 3.94 crore (including electrical fittings of ` 2.26 crore
installed at buffer area); Eco Garden ` 6.50 crore; Bauddh Vihar - ` 3.77 crore; Prerna Sthal - ` 16.84 crore.
LSI: ` 22.37crore and EPPL: ` 23.46 crore
43
case of different rates awarded/available for same fittings at both Lucknow

and Noida.
Horticulture Work
2.2.33 Expenditure of ` 17 crore91 was incurred on horticulture works
(including ornamental plants: ` 5.84 crore and creation of grassy lawns:
` 10.76 crore) at the projects undertaken at Lucknow. Audit findings on
horticulture works are discussed below:
x There were huge variations ranging between 178 to 774 per cent in the
prices of plants of same species and size during a short span of three to six
months. (Appendix-24)
x It can be seen from the Appendix-24 that plants, such as, Peepal, Imli and
Maulsri were purchased from private parties at the rates which were 543 to
1,329 per cent higher than the rates of Forest Department.
x Out of plantation of ` 17 crore, 40,330 plants ,valued at ` 12.84 crore only
were handed over along with the memorials at Lucknow to the Smarkon,
Sangrahalayon, Sansthano, Parkon Va Upvano Aadi Ki Prabandhan
Suraksha Evam Anurakshan Samiti (SSPUPSAS). Records and details of
remaining plants valued at ` 4.16 crore were not maintained. It indicates
that all the Government Departments92 individually and collectively failed
in monitoring the horticulture work and control/ correct the lapses of the
EA.
EA stated (September 2013) that the rates of plants differ due to different
sizes and specifications of plants and maintenance clause involved. Further,
the plants removed/replaced were handed over to the LDA. The reply is not
acceptable as we have pointed out variations in the prices of plants of the
same species and sizes procured within a short span of time. No document
showing handing over of the removed/replaced plants to LDA has been
provided to audit except 272 thuja plants and 112 imli plants at Samajik
Parivartan Sthal.
The lack of supervision of the work by the Government Departments93 led to
unaccounted expenditure ` 4.16 crore.
Art work for bronze murals, fountains etc.
Abdication of responsibilities by Committees
2.2.34 The Department of Culture (DoC) constituted94 (19 September 2007) a
Work Monitoring and Verification Committee95 (WMVC) to supervise and
guide the EA; to recommend the statues/art items; nature of statues;
construction material to be used and to ensure quality and timely execution of
work.
The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) also formed96 (25 October
2007) a Committee97 to recommend a panel of artists and sculptors, to
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Which constituted 0.49 per cent of the total expenditure of the projects.
HUPD, DoC, DoI and PWD.
HUPD/DoC/DoI/PWD
Vide order no. 2409/-2007-203/2007
WMVC: Chairman Director, Culture; Members Secretary, Lalit Kala Academy; Director, Archaeology;
Addl. Secretary, LDA; Director, Museum; Director, Anveshanalay evam Gunvatta Niyantran Prakosth, PWD;
Joint Director, Geology and Mining; Dy. Director, Avas Bandhu and General Manager, EA.
Vide order no. 167/. 1/07
Members - Dy. Director, Culture and Secretary, Rajya Lalit Kala Academy; Chief Engineer, LDA; Finance
Controller, LDA; Jt. Secretary, LDA; Executive Engineer of Development Authority concerned with the project;
General Manager (Sodic) and General Manager (Technical), EA; Two Project Managers and One Assistant
Accounts Officer of EA.
44
evaluate the quotations received from empanelled artists/sculptors and to

recommend the rates after negotiation.
The DoC again constituted98 (6 November 2007), a Price Determination
Committee99 (PDC) to ensure the quality of material to be used and to
determine the appropriate price of various statues, sculptures and fountains.
These Committees were set up to guide and supervise the EA on art works as
the EA lacked the core competency in this field since it is a construction
Company.
We observed that there was no laid down procedure regarding the working of
these Committees. The WMVC, the PDC and the Committee constituted by
LDA were neither involved in price determination process nor in the process
for selection of art works, despite the fact that these were in their scope of
responsibilities. Artefacts worth ` 252.82 crore100 were procured for the
projects at the rates and from the suppliers finalised by the EA itself without
involvement of any committee. This was a clear abdication of laid down
responsibilities by the Committees.
DoC stated (October 2013) that it has repeatedly directed the EA to obtain
competitive rates. Further, the WMVC also directed the EA from time to time
for fixation of rates but the EA did not pay heed to their direction hence it is
not possible for them to decide the rates. Further, the PDC also stated (12 July
2011) that it was not responsible for finalisation of rates as it was done by the
EA itself. From the reply of DoC it is clear that rates were finalised by EA in
disregard to WMVC. The EA stated (September 2013) that all estimates were
recommended and forwarded to GoUP by PDC/WMVC only. The reply of the
EA is contradictory to the reply of the DoC and the PDC. It is also clear from
the reply of the DoC that it did not monitor the working of the Committees set
up by it and allowed the EA a free hand.
Irregular selection of firm for bronze work
2.2.35 Out of artefacts of ` 252.82 crore, all bronze art works (except bronze
gates and bronze coffers) were executed by Ram Sutar Fine Arts Private
Limited (RSFAL) for ` 174.05 crore. We noticed that:
x The DoC sent (27 August 2007) to EA a list of 33 sculptors empanelled101
with it.
x The EA formed (26 September 2007) a Joint Market Survey Committee
(JMSC)102 to finalise suppliers and rates for various items of bronze art
works.
98
99
Vide order no. 2911(1)/ 2007-264(.)/2007

PDC: Chairman Director, Anveshanalaya evam Gunvatta Niyantran Prakosth, PWD; Members Joint
Director, Geology and Mining; Special Secretary, Finance, GoUP; Director, U.P. State Archaeology Directorate;
Dy. Director, Avas Bandhu; Director, PFAD; Consultant, Samajik Parivartan Sthal; Chief Engineer, PWD;
Managing Director, EA; Secretary, National Lalit Kala Academy; Secretary, Lalit Kala Academy, U.P.;
Workshop Superintendent, Institute of Technology, Lucknow
100
Sl. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
101
102
Artefacts
Bronze items: Statues (` 13.02 crore), Fountains and capitals (` 56.08 crore),
Eco thematic ornamental work (` 63.10 crore), Murals (` 19.97 crore) and
others (` 21.88 crore)
Marble statues
Sand stone elephant sculptures
Paintings
Total
Value
(` in crore)
174.05
19.13
59.33
0.31
252.82
Empanelled with the Directorate of Culture, GoUP. List provided by the Director, Directorate of Culture, GoUP
to EA vide letter no. 1014/ 00 25(35)/2007 dated 27. August 2007.
Members two General Managers; two Unit In-charges and one Assistant Accounts Officer of EA.
45
x
x
None of the empanelled sculptors of DoC was considered by the JMSC.

The JMSC surveyed (27 September 2007 to 28 September 2007) three
workshops (RSFAL, Noida; Anand Niketan, Jaipur and Arjun Arts,
Jaipur), however, the survey was a mere formality as Director of RSFAL
(27 September 2007) informed JMSC that they had already submitted (20
September 2007) their quotation to the EA and also has started work on
the project.
x The EA formally selected (1 October 2007) RSFAL for execution of
bronze art work and rates for various items were approved (10 October
2007) by the EA.
We further noticed that, after approval (10 October 2007) of rates, notice for
prequalification for empanelment of artists for bronze and marble art work,
was published (13 October 2007), but no further action on this bid was taken
as no records in this regard were available. Thus, it is evident that the
selection of RSFAL was pre-determined and formation of the JMSC was
merely a formality. Moreover, RSFAL was not even in the list of 33
empanelled sculptors sent by the DoC to the EA.
DoC stated (October 2013) that it had made available the list of sculptors to
EA on which further action was required to be taken by the EA. EA stated
(September 2013) that the JMSC found that RSFAL was the only firm
capable of doing such a quantum of work. Reply is not acceptable as RSFAL
had started the work for the project before formation of JMSC, indicating predetermined selection of RSFAL which was violation of all laid down
procurement/selection procedures.
Finalisation of rates for Bronze and Steel items
2.2.36 The price of the art and sculpture depends on the artist and sculptors,
therefore, we have restricted our scrutiny of the prices submitted by individual
artists/firms and we noticed that an extra expenditure of ` 12.74 crore was
incurred on procurement of various items as discussed below:
x Bronze Murals: One bronze mural of size 3.4m x 5.8m was installed at
site at ` 42.00 lakh plus VAT which was based on pro rata calculation of
length and width. Subsequent orders for murals of sizes 4m x 8m and
6.27m x 7m were placed respectively at ` 75 lakh per mural plus VAT and
` 120.00 lakh plus VAT. We cross checked the pro-rata calculations of
RSFAL and found that rate comes to ` 68.16 lakh103 and ` 93.49 lakh104
per mural for mural of sizes 4m x 8m and 6.27m x 7m respectively. This
incorrect computation led to extra expenditure of ` 2.27 crore105 on
purchases of 12 murals at Samajik Parivartan Sthal and Smarak Sthal.
The EA stated (September 2013) that increase in size of bronze murals
causes increase in depth, weight of casting, frame work and dye work of
Mural so firm quoted the rates separately and the rates were not
comparable on the basis of surface area as done by Audit.
The reply is not acceptable as RSFAL itself quoted rates on the pro-rata
basis but the calculations were not checked by the EA. Moreover, audit
has also calculated the rates of the murals on the same basis on which
rates were quoted by the RSFAL. Thus, lack of due diligence in checking
the rates quoted by the RSFAL led to extra expenditure of ` 2.27 crore.
103
104
105
` 42 lakh x (4 m x 8 m)/(3.4 m x 5.8 m) = ` 68.16 lakh.

` 42 lakh x (6.27 m x 7 m)/(3.4 m x 5.8 m) = ` 93.49 lakh.
[{(` 120.00 lakh- ` 93.49 lakh) x 6) + (` 75.00 lakh - ` 68.16 lakh) x 6)} x 1.135] = ` 227.11 lakh
46
Bronze and steel items: The rates of bronze and stainless steel for
Lucknow were finalised in October 2007 without limitation of quantity
against which the RSFAL made supplies till November 2011 at the same
rate. We noticed that EA did not procure these items at Noida at rates
finalised in October 2007 despite the fact that there was no limitation on
quantity to be supplied. Instead, it awarded the work at Noida in January
2011 at ` 1700 per kg and ` 1100 per Kg for bronze and steel items
respectively which were higher by ` 600 per kg and ` 150 per kg
respectively than the rates awarded at Lucknow. This resulted in extra
expenditure of ` 9.85 crore106.
The EA stated (September 2013) that the rates of bronze and steel items
for Lucknow were approved in 2007 whereas the rates for Noida were
approved in 2011.
The reply is not acceptable as these items could be procured for Noida
also against the rate finalized for Lucknow as there was no limitation of
quantity and the same were supplied at the lower rates till November 2011
while the order at Noida was placed in January 2011. Moreover, both
works at Lucknow and Noida were being executed simultaneously by the
EA itself.
x Bronze capitals: The rates of bronze capitals were approved (October
2007 and February 2009) in Lucknow and Noida at ` 7.10 lakh each.
However, payment in Lucknow was made on the basis of actual weight of
the capital which worked out to ` 5.28 lakh per capital. Had the units of
EA at Noida, made payment on the basis of actual weight, it could have
avoided an excess expenditure of ` 0.62 crore107.
The EA stated (September 2013) that the rates of bronze capital (` 1,100
per kg) for Lucknow was approved in 2007, whereas, the bronze capitals
were purchased for Noida during 2009 to 2011 at the rate of ` 7.10 lakh
per capital.
The reply is not acceptable as at Lucknow, though the rates of bronze
capital were approved at ` 7.10 lakh per capital, the actual payment was
made on the basis of actual weight of the capital (` 1,100 per kg) till
November 2011. Moreover, both works at Lucknow and Noida were
being executed simultaneously by the EA itself and there is no
justification for not making payment on basis of actual weight as was
done at Lucknow.
Excess release of advance
2.2.37 As per the terms and conditions of supply order dated 17 January 2011
placed with RSFAL for supply of two bronze fountains, the supplier was to
get an advance of 40 per cent of the total cost of work (` 30.90 crore), which
worked out to ` 12.36 crore. We noticed that the EA released advance of ` 24
crore to RSFAL which was in excess of the prescribed limit by ` 11.64 crore.
This excess release of advance of ` 11.64 crore, was indicative of undue
favour to the supplier and also resulted in loss of interest of ` 15.69 lakh.108
NOIDA stated (January 2014) that the EA has made payment as per the terms
and condition of the agreement. EA stated (September 2013) that it released
advance within terms and conditions of agreement. The reply is not
106
107
108
1,25,066.13 kg bronze and 78,235.00 kg stainless steel

30 capitals (` 7.10 lakh - ` 5.28 lakh) + VAT at the rate of 13.5 per cent
Calculated at the rate of four per cent per annum on ` 5.82 crore for 103 days and ` 5.82 crore for 143 days
being the rate of interest on savings bank account.
47
acceptable as excess advance of ` 11.64 crore was made over and above the
prescribed limit.
Irregularities in obtaining mandatory Environmental Clearances
2.2.38 Under the existing pollution control laws, 109 all construction activities
require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for Environment Clearances from
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) before start of work. Further,
as per the notification dated 14 September 2006 issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), townships and area development projects
covering an area of more than 50 hectares and/or having built up area110
greater than 1.50 lakh sqm, are required to obtain prior Environmental
Clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), before commencement of any construction work. The notification
further provides that such projects require an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) report of the project from SEIAA prior to grant of EC.
We observed that though as per the extant laws, NOC and/or EC from
UPPCB was required before start of work, the EA started construction work
of four projects at Lucknow even before applying for the NOC and/or EC
from UPPCB and SEIAA respectively. The status of NOC and EC for the
projects is depicted below:
Table 2.10: Details of NOC and EC taken for the projects
Sl.
No.
Name of
project
Commencement
of work
1.
Samajik
Parivartan
Sthal
October 2007
2.
Smarak
Sthal
October 2007
4 August
2008
3.
Eco
Garden
Bauddh
Vihar
September 2009
28 May 2010
June 2008
2 March 2009
Prerna
Sthal
February 2008
4.
5.
NOC
Date of
Date of
submission
grant of
of
NOC
application
29 March
25 August
2008
2008
EC
Date of
submission
of the
application
29 March
2008
12
December
2008
27 July
2010
27 August
2009
Date of
grant of EC
Not
Applicable
Not Applicable
11 April
4 July 2011
2011
Not Applicable
NOC taken by NOIDA
24 April
2009
Not
Applicable
Reasons/
Remarks
The SEIAA opined

that the project does
not come under the
preview of MoEF
notification, 2006 as
built up area was less
than 1.50 lakh sqm.
EC not required as
project area was less
than 50 hectare.
-EC not required as
project area was less
than 50 hectare.
The SEIAA opined
that having regard to
the nature and area of
the project it was not
covered
by
the
schedule
of
the
notification dated 14
September 2006.
(Source: Compiled from the records of EA)
109
110
Section 21 (1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides that "Subject to the
provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate
any industrial plant in an air pollution control area".
Further, Section 25 (1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 provides that " Subject to
provision of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, (a) establish or take
any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or an extension or
addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade affluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land
(such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or (b) bring into use any new
or altered outlets for the discharge of sewage; or (c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage.
The built up area for covered construction, as classified in the Notification dated 16 September 2006, it will be
the activity area in the case of facilities open to the sky.
48
Department of Irrigation (DoI) stated (November 2013) that NOC was to be

obtained by EA. Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD) stated
(December 2013) that the first estimate of Samajik Parivartan Sthal was
prepared for renovation work hence environmental clearances were not
required however, due to addition of new works NOC/EC were sought. EA,
however, stated (September 2013) that it applied for NOC at all projects as
required.
The reply of HUPD is not acceptable as the works approved in October 2007
at Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Lucknow included additional construction works
and not merely renovation works. This is also evident from the approved
estimate. Further, no justification was provided for commencement of work
prior to obtaining NOC at other projects.
We further noticed that the Departments and EA did not ensure compliance of
environmental rules and regulations and furnished incorrect data to the
SEIAA to avoid environmental clearances as discussed in table given below:
Table 2.11: Audit observations on environmental issues
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
111
112
Particulars
Audit observation
Ministry of Environment
and
Forests
(MoEF)
notification
(September
2006) clarified that the built
up area includes the activity
area.
The
Central
Empowered Committee111
appointed
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court was of the
view that for the purpose of
environmental clearances,
the building bye laws of the
state Government have no
relevance and the area
under
the
memorials;
utilities and facilities; area
used for hard landscape
including platforms, plinth,
sculptures,
surrounded
paved area, path; and area
for vehicular movement,
would qualify to be
included in the built up
area.
The EA declared (10 May 2011) to SEIAA that total

project area was 4,33,417.21 sqm and built up area was
8,836.14 sqm of Samajik Parivartan Sthal. Based on above
submissions SEIAA opined (4 July 2011) that the project
did not come under purview of MoEF notification of
September 2006 for obtaining Environment Clearances
(EC).
We noticed that EA excluded the hard landscaping area of
4,06,626.45 sqm from the built up area. This area under
hard landscape when added to112 the built up area, crosses
the threshold mark of 1.50 lakh sqm and, hence, prior
approval of the EC was needed. Thus, EA submitted
incorrect data in the instant case. We further noticed that
HUPD did not review and take cognizance of the
fallacious data submitted by the EA.
HUPD stated (December 2013) that only built up area and
total area were intimated to SEIAA and built up area were
decided as per circular dated 2 April 2012 which states
that area which was not covered or any area which was
open to sky/cut out/duct should not be counted in the
calculation of built up area. EA also stated (September
2013) similar position.
The contention of HUPD/EA that built up area was
decided on the basis of circular of 2 April 2012 does not
apply, as the circular of 2012 came in to existence after
completion of project. At the time of construction, EC was
required as the notification of 16 September 2006 was
operative, which clearly states that the built up area
includes activity area in case of facilities open to the sky.
We found that only 4.33 per cent area at Samajik
Parivartan Sthal were covered by soft landscaping which
was a clear violation of the terms of the NOC granted by
UPPCB.
HUPD did not offer any comment in their reply
(December 2013).
The UPPCB prescribed for

Samajik Parivartan Sthal a
condition that out of total
project area, 33 per cent
area shall be developed as
green belt.
I.A. Nos. 2609-2610 of 2009 in writ petition No. 202 of 1995 for construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird
Sanctuary
As per notification of MOEF dated September 2006 which clarified that the built up area includes the activity
area. As per Central Empowered Committees views the area being used for hard landscape including platforms,
plinth, sculptures, surrounded paved area, pathways, area for vehicular movement etc. also qualify to be
included in the built up area, besides the area under covered buildings
49
Non-fulfilment of objective of construction of Eco Garden

2.2.39 The Supreme Court of India permitted113 (8 July 2009) the shifting of
the Lucknow Jail on the condition that the existing area of 195 acres would be
used as an eco park and no structure or monument would be constructed in
that place.
Accordingly the Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) sanctioned an amount
of ` 1,075.62 crore for construction Eco Garden as a park under Section 2-B
of the U.P. Parks, Play Ground and Open Spaces (Preservation and
Regulation) Act, 1975114 (Act) wherein only five per cent of the total area was
to be covered with or buildings and the whole or the remainder is laid out as a
garden with trees, plants etc.
We examined the layout of the constructed park and found that:
x
x
x
x
x
There is plantation on only 2.47 per cent of the total area. The norms115 of
Forest Department for parks specifying the type of plantation were not
followed. Out of the 19,997 tree/plants planted in the Eco Garden only
730116 trees/plants were from the indigenous species prescribed by the
Forest Department for green belt of parks and the remaining 96.35 per
cent plants were of exotic species like Furcasia, Adenium, Cycas revoluta,
Euphorbia Milli, Durenta, varieties of Cactus and Palm etc.
Balance 97.53 per cent area is not eco friendly and includes lawns on
53.30 per cent117, hard surfaces118 on 41.05 per cent (granite, sandstone
and marble flooring) and buildings on 3.18 per cent.
Bronze statues of animals and trees have been installed.
There is no solar lighting and for lighting and cooling of the buildings the
Eco Garden, Lucknow is dependent on the power supply from
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Diesel Generating sets.
No provision exists for natural preparation of organic fertilisers.
Buildings are built of concrete and sandstone and not from recycled or
less energy intensive material.
A view of Eco Garden constructed at Lucknow
Eco Garden, Lucknow
113
114
115
116
117
118
Eco Garden, Lucknow
Under Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13940-13941/2009.

Notified by the GoUP
As per letter no. 1331/34-3-1 dated 4 April 2012 of Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh following
species is prescribed for plantation in green belt of parks: Shisham, Neem, Arjun, Amaltas, Gulmohar, Jekrenda,
Siras, Kanji, Aam, Chhitwan, Bargad, Peepal, Paakad, Maulsri, Kachnaar and Kadamb.
Peepal : 299 nos. and Maulsri : 431 nos.
Lawns are considered as non-eco friendly as it is a high- water- consuming component in sustainable site
planning (MoEF),requires too much pesticide, herbicide and toxic chemicals (Smithsonian) and adversely affect
the health of environment and humans especially children and pets due to their proximity to the ground (NASA
study)
As per the view (September 2009) of the Central Empowered Committee appointed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Prerna Sthal, Noida, covered area includes utilities and facilities; area used for hard landscape
including platforms, plinth, sculptures, surrounded paved area, path; and area for vehicular movement, to qualify
to be included in the built up area
50
Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD) stated (December 2013)

that as per assurance of GoUP to Hon'ble Supreme Court, Eco park was
constructed at the site. Further, for providing public facilities to the visitors,
opinion was sought from Justice Department, who in absence of norms for
Eco Park, suggested development of facilities under the Act.
The reply is not convincing as the Justice Department had merely reiterated
the provisions of the Act in its advice of January 2010. The fact remains that
44.23 per cent of the total area is covered in violation of the provisions of the
Act.
Lack of supervision and monitoring
2.2.40 Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) advised (September 2007) the
GoUP to constitute a High Level Committee to continuously monitor the use
of high specifications, quality of construction and progress of works.
We noticed that this Monitoring High Level Committee (MHLC) was not
formed by the Government to supervise and monitor the projects.
Departments at their own level formed various committees which did not fully
perform their functions according to their terms of reference/scope of work as
detailed in Appendix-25.
Thus, failure of EFC and lack of supervision and monitoring at the
GoUP/Government Department levels resulted in enormous hike in the
project outlay, frequent changes in drawings and designs, infructuous
expenditure on re-execution of works, finalisation of higher rates for works
and excess payments to contractors/suppliers.
Conclusion
2.2.41 Audit of construction of four memorials at Lucknow and one
memorial at Noida revealed various irregularities in the execution of
projects. Deficient planning such as frequent additions and revisions,
changes in drawings and designs and consequent re-execution led to hike
in the outlay of the project. Dismantling of pre-existing structures was
done without proper approvals. There was lack of proper documentation
regarding recovery from dismantled materials. Deficiencies in
appointment of consultants, lacunae in the consultancy agreements and
non-observance of the conditions thereof resulted in excess payments.
Higher rates were decided due to deficiencies in obtaining competitive
rates and incorrect analysis of rates. The Administrative Departments
failed to monitor and supervise the work of the Executing Agency with
the result that the gross irregularities committed by the Executing
Agency remained unchecked and extra/infructuous expenditure was
incurred. The environmental aspects were also not adequately adhered to
as per the provisions of the relevant Acts.
Recommendations
2.2.42 We recommend that the Government and its executing agencies
should:
x
Exercise proper financial and administrative controls in all projects;

51
Properly plan to conceive the project so as to avoid extra expenditure;
Ensure compliance of extant laws, rules and provisions of their manual;

and
Strengthen their monitoring mechanism for works of special nature.
52
CHAPTERIII
Compliance Audit
Chapter-III: Compliance Audit
CHAPTER-III
3.
Compliance Audit
Compliance audit of transactions of the Government departments, their field

formations as well as that of the autonomous bodies brought out instances of
lapses in management of resources and failures in the observance of the norms
of propriety and economy. These have been presented in the succeeding
paragraphs.
Forest Department
3.1
Short recovery of transit fee
The Department short recovered transit fee of ` 639.77 crore due to lack
of co-ordination and absence of proper system to monitor the movement
of forest produce.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) in exercise of the powers conferred
under section 41, 42, 51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act), framed
(September 1978) the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Other Forest
Produce Rules, 1978 (Rules) to regulate the transit of timber and other forest
produce. Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules also provide that no forest produce shall be
moved into, or from, or within the State without transit passes issued by the
Forest Department and payment of transit fee at the prescribed rates. The
GoUP prescribed (June 2004)1, transit fee of ` 38 per ton (` 5 per ton up to 13
June 2004) for forest produce carted by lorry.
Forest produce, as defined in Section 2 of the Act includes peat, surface soil,
rock and minerals (including lime stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products
of mines and quarries) when found in or brought from a forest. The Honble
High Court of Allahabad in the case of Kumar Stone Works and Others Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh further held (April 2005) that even if the aforesaid
goods are carted on roads that pass through forest land, the goods would be
covered under the definition of forest produce and were liable to levy of
transit fee. The Honble Supreme Court of India later stayed (April 2008) the
demand and recovery of transit fee. The GoUP also removed (July 2008)2 all
the check posts/barriers established for the purpose of checking of
transportation of forest produce.
Further, it was noticed that the Mining Department grants leases for mining of
sand, morrum, stone grit, ballast from the river bed after obtaining No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Forest Department. The State
Government with a view to bring uniformity in the NOCs issued by the
Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs)/ Divisional Directors (DDs) issued
(February 2008) directives to incorporate certain points in the NOCs which
inter-alia included the condition of payment of transit fee by the concerned
person/ lessee as prescribed by the GoUP in June 2004.
We cross checked the transit fee records of 21 DFOs/ DDs with the records of
the relevant District Mining Officers (DMOs) and noticed that:
1
2
Vide notification no. 1047/ XIV-2-2-2004-343 (f)/ 2001 dated 14 June 2004.
Vide Order no. 2809/14-2-2008 dated July 2008.
53
DFOs/DDs of two districts3 did not include the clause regarding levy of
transit fee on the movement of forest produce in the NOCs.
The Department stated (December 2013) that process of disciplinary
action against the concerned officers has been initiated.
Forest Department was responsible for issuing NOCs to District

Magistrates/DMOs for mining and for collection of transit fee. The Forest
Department, however, did not co-ordinate with the Mining Department to
obtain data of forest produce extracted by the lessees and MM-114 issued
to the lessees by the Mining Department for its transportation. No
monitoring system was developed to plug the leakage of transit fee
especially after removal of the check posts/barriers in July 2008.
In 21 districts test checked by Audit, 1,888.43 lakh ton of forest produce5was

excavated and transported during the period from April 2005 to March 2008
i.e. prior to the stay orders of the Honble Supreme Court of India. Against the
said transportation, the Forest Department was required to collect transit fee of
` 717.61 crore. The Forest Department, however, could collect transit fee of
` 77.84 crore only. Thus, due to lack of co-ordination and absence of proper
system to monitor the movement of forest produce, the Department short
recovered transit fee of ` 639.77 crore (Appendix-26).
Further, the Forest Department, did not maintain any details regarding the
transit of forest produce after issue of stay orders by the Honble Supreme
Court of India in April 2008 that would enable it to recover the due transit fees
in case the issue pending in the Honble Supreme Court is finally decided in
favour of recovery.
The Department stated (December 2013) that despite efforts made by the
Divisional Manager/Conservator of Forest, transit fee from the licensees could
not be recovered as the District Magistrate/Mining Department did not furnish
the necessary information about lessees and the quantum of minerals
excavated. It further stated that the collection of transit fee was also adversely
affected due to stay orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India.
The reply is not acceptable as despite the enormity of revenue involved, the
matter was not pursued at the Department or Government level. Besides, in
cases covered by the stay orders of the Honble Supreme Court/High Court,
the Forest Department failed to issue Transit Passes (as required under Rule 3
of the Rules) to keep a record of the movement of forest produce in order to
recover the due transit fees in case the issue is finally decided by the Honble
Court in favour of the recovery.
The matter was reported to the Government in June 2013, the reply is awaited
(February 2014).
3.2
Loss due to non-sale of roots of the trees
The Department was deprived of revenue of ` 36.13 lakh due to nonsale of roots of the trees.
The trees are felled and timber/fuel wood is sold by the Uttar Pradesh Forest
Corporation (UPFC) as per the procedure laid down in the Forest manual. The
UPFC sells timber/fuel wood through auction on the basis of base rate fixed
3
4
5
Lalitpur and Obra Forest Divisions.

Transit Pass issued by Mining Department authorising the transportation of minerals.
Sand, Morrum, Stone grit, Stone ballast, Boulder/slab, Granite size dimensional stone and Coal.
54
by it for various varieties of timber/fuel wood. In normal felling, the trees are
felled above 10 cm from the earth and roots are left as the excavation of roots
is uneconomical, but in case of construction of National Highways and roads,
the trees are uprooted. Since the trees are uprooted their roots are also
available for allotment by the Department to UPFC for sale as fuel wood.
We observed that, though Sitapur Division of the Department of Forests
(Department) allotted the roots to UPFC for sale, three other Divisions6 of the
Department failed to do so. As a result, the Department was deprived of
revenue of ` 36.13 lakh7 on 55,158 trees uprooted between 2005-06 and
2009-10.
The Department stated (December 2013) that instruction have been issued in
September 2012 for sale of roots, through auction by UPFC, also.
The fact remains that the Divisions failed to allot the roots to UPFC for sale
despite there being a system for sale of fuel wood8, resulting in loss of revenue
to the Department.
The matter was reported to the Government in June 2013, the reply is awaited
(February 2014).
3.3
Short levy of royalty due to delay in prescription of volume factor
The Department short levied royalty of ` 27.37 lakh on eucalyptus trees

of diameters above 45 cm due to non-revision of volume factor
simultaneously with the increase in felling cycle, for trees of diameter
above 45 cm.
As per orders issued (June 1978) by the Chief Conservator of Forests
(Management) Uttar Pradesh, the volume factor for calculating royalty on
eucalyptus trees, of diameter up to 45 cm was prescribed, based on a felling
cycle9 of 8 years. The felling cycle was increased to 10/30 years10 in April
1993 and to 15 years11 in April 1998.
Despite the fact that, the volume factor is dependent on the diameter of trees,
which naturally increases with age, the volume factor for trees of diameter
above 45 cm was not prescribed simultaneously (or latest by April 199512 and
April 200313 respectively) with the increase in felling cycle. The volume factor
of trees having diameter of more than 45 cm was prescribed14 only in
December 2008.
In absence of the prescribed volume factor for trees of diameter above 45 cm
up to December 2008, the divisional authorities of the Department of Forests
(Department), continued to levy (up to December 2008) royalty on trees of 1015 years age, having a higher diameter, at rates applicable for trees having
diameter in the range of 40-45 cm i.e. the maximum diameter prescribed on
the basis of felling cycle of eight years.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Divisional Director, Basti; Divisional Director, Barabanki and Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut.
55,158 trees x ` 65.50 per root being the net realisable value fixed by a Committee of Sitapur Division = ` 36.13
lakh.
Roots are treated as fuel wood.
Felling cycle indicates the age fixed for cutting down the trees.
10 year for canal side trees and 30 year for road side trees.
For both canal side and road side trees.
Within two years of increase in felling cycle from eight to 10 years in 1993.
Within five years from increase in felling cycle from 10 to 15 years.
In ranges of 45-50 cm, 50-55 cm, 55-60 cm, 60-65 cm, 65-70 cm, 70-75 cm, 75-80 cm, 80-85 cm, 85 to 90 cm
and 90 cm and above.
55
Thus, six Divisions of the Department short levied royalty to the tune of
` 27.37 lakh on 6,646 eucalyptus trees of diameters above 45 cm allotted to
and felled by Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation (UPFC) during the period
April 2004 to December 2008 as detailed in Appendix-27 and summarised
below:
Table 3.1: Summary of short levy of Royalty
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name of the
Division
Divisional
Conservator of
Forests, Shivalik,
Saharanpur
Divisional Forest
Officer, Ambedkar
Nagar
Divisional Director,
Barabanki
Sultanpur
Basti
Divisional Forest
Officer, Social
Forestry, Deoria
Total
Year
Diameter
of the trees
(in cm)
No. of
trees
felled by
UPFC
Volume as
per norms
prescribed
in Dec 2008
(in cum)
Actual volume
taken by the
Department (in
cum)
2004-05 to
2008-09
Difference
in volume
(in cum)
Short levy
of royalty
(` in lakh)
45-55
1666
2324.772
1611.022
713.750
8.20
2005-06 to
2008-09
45-75
512
693.466
494.458
199.008
2.18
2004-05 to
2008-09
2004-05 to
2008-09
2004-05 to
2008-09
2006-07 to
2008-09
45-65
428
544.205
417.501
126.704
1.06
45-85
3255
4457.293
3138.478
1318.815
12.87
45-55
276
347.104
260.611
86.493
0.89
45-70
509
696.588
492.203
204.385
2.17
6646
9063.428
6414.273
2649.155
27.37
The Department stated (December 2013) that the Government has now
directed (November 2013) the Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttar Pradesh to
revise the volume factor before revising the felling cycle.
The reply confirms that the Department suffered loss of revenue due to
inordinate delay in revising (December 2008) the volume factor along with
corresponding revision in the felling cycle.
The matter was reported to the Government in June 2013; the reply is awaited
(February 2014).
3.4
Construction of Yamuna Expressway
Introduction
3.4.1 The Infrastructure and Industrial Development Department15 (IIDD),
Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) conceived (March 2001) a Public
Private Partnership (PPP) project for construction of 16016 km Taj Expressway
to (i) provide a fast moving corridor to minimize the travel time from New
Delhi to Agra (ii) open up avenues for industrial and urban development of the
region and (iii) provide base for convergence to tourism and other allied
industries. The GoUP established17 (April 2001) the Taj Expressway Industrial
Development Authority18 (TEA) to anchor the development of the project. The
15
16
17
18
Formerly known as Department of Industries.

Actually constructed 165 Kms.
Under Clause (d) of Section-2 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.
As per GO of April 2001 the Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority shall consist of Principal
Secretary, Industries and Industrial Development Commissioner as Chairman, Principal Secretary, Public Works
Department; Principal Secretary, Avas; Principal Secretary, Finance; Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State
Industrial Development Corporation Limited; Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority; Chief Executive Officer, Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority; Secretary, Industrial
Development; District Magistrate, Gautam Budhha Nagar and District Magistrate, Agra as members and Chief
Executive Officer, Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority as Member Secretary.
56
TEA was renamed (July 2008) as Yamuna Expressway Industrial

Development Authority (YEIDA)19. Consequently, the project was also
renamed (July 2008) as Yamuna Expressway.
We examined (April 2012 to May 2012) the bid documents, records relating to
finalisation and approval of the bid and the Concession agreement of Yamuna
Expressway project at the Secretariat of the Infrastructure and Industrial
Development Department (IIDD); collected information and documents from
the concerned field offices to see whether the process of selection of the PPP
bidder and award of Concession was fair, transparent and competitive and
risks/ rewards were optimally shared between YEIDA and bidder and the PPP
project and the Concession Agreement were effectively and properly
implemented.
Finalisation of bid and award of the project for execution
3.4.2 The YEIDA invited (3 November 2002) offers from interested parties of
national/international repute for (i) development of Techno-Economic
Feasibility Report (TEFR) and Detailed Project Report (DPR); (ii)
arrangement of finances; and (iii) construction and operation of a six lane
super expressway between Noida and Agra. First phase of the Expressway
between Noida Toll Bridge and Greater Noida (about 25 Kms) had already
been constructed by the GoUP and was also opened for general public before
the offers were invited in November 2002.
The salient features of the project as per the bid document were as follows:
x A private sector developer was to be selected by the YEIDA and a Joint
Venture Company (JVC)/Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was to be formed
for execution of the project. In return, the JVC/SPV was to be given rights
to levy tolls and also rights for land development.
x The Expressway was to pass through virgin area along the River Yamuna
and total land20 measuring 2,500 hectare at five or more locations, of
which one location with total area of 500 hectare was to be in Noida or
Greater Noida, was to be offered to the developer along the Expressway,
for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential
development at premium equivalent to the acquisition cost and lease rent
of ` 100 per hectare per year, on lease for a period of 90 years.
x The project was to be executed on JVC/SPV basis with 25 per cent equity
to YEIDA and 75 per cent equity to the JV partner. In this case, the cost of
Expressway commissioned between Noida and Greater Noida was to be
treated as equity participation of YEIDA in the JVC/SPV and if the cost of
Noida-Greater Noida Expressway would be in excess of 25 per cent
equity, the surplus amount was to be treated as interest free loan to the
JVC/SPV. Alternatively, at the option of the bidder, the project could be
taken up by the bidder exclusively without any equity participation by
YEIDA. In this case, the entire cost of Noida-Greater Noida Expressway
was to be treated as interest free-loan to JVC/SPV.
x The bid variable i.e. the parameter on the basis of which the financial bids
were to be evaluated was the concession period21 to be specified in years,
months and days.
19
20
21
In the report we have used the name YEIDA (erstwhile TEA).

In addition to land in stretch of 100 meters for construction of Expressway.
Concession period is the period for which the Concessionaire will collect and use toll charges and for which the
Concessionaire shall operate and maintain the Expressway.
57
In response to the open offers invited (November 2002) by YEIDA, three

bidders22 submitted their bids, of which one bid23 was rejected as it was
submitted after the scheduled time. The technical bids24 of the remaining two
bidders were evaluated and found suitable (20 January 2003). Thereafter, their
financial bids were also opened on 20 January 2003. Jaiprakash Industries
Limited, New Delhi (JIL) was selected for execution of the project, as it had
offered a concession period of 36 years against concession period of 39 years
07 months and 10 days offered by Laing DSC Joint Venture. Finalisation of
the bid in favour of JIL, with concession period of 36 years, was approved by
the Economic Development Committee (EDC) of the Cabinet on 23 January
2003.
The YEIDA intimated (23 January 2003) JIL regarding approval of its
selection as the Concessionaire for execution of the project. Further, the JIL
(Concessionaire) opted (23 January 2003) to implement the project without
any equity participation from YEIDA and insisted to execute a Concession
Agreement instead of a Promoters Agreement25. Accordingly, the YEIDA
executed (7 February 2003) a Concession Agreement with the Concessionaire.
The project was to start after signing of Concession Agreement and was to be
completed within seven years as per the Agreement. The progress of the work
was adversely affected during the period up to March 2007 due to delay in
approval of the alignment of the Expressway by YEIDA. The alignment of the
Expressway was, however, approved by the YEIDA in March 2007 after
which the Concessionaire, in compliance of the provisions of the bid
document and concession agreement, incorporated (October 2007) a Special
Purpose Vehicle (SPV) named Jay Pee Infratech Limited, Noida for execution
of the project.
Status of the Yamuna Expressway
3.4.3 The YEIDA allotted 2,458.45 hectare land to the Concessionaire at five
locations at acquisition cost and other expenses totalling to ` 2,705.26 crore as
detailed in the table below:
Table 3.2: Details of land allotted to the Concessionaire
(` in crore)
Sl.
No.
Location of land
parcel
Land allotted
to
Concessionaire
(in Hectare)
Acquisition
cost paid by
Concessionaire
Resettlement
and
Rehabilitation
charges
External
development
charges
(EDC)
Total
NIL
374.67
1.
Noida, Gautam
Buddha Nagar
498.93
37 4.67
2.
Jaganpur, Gautam
Buddha Nagar
490.79
510.39
4.62
281.71
796.52
3.
Mirzapur, Gautam
Buddha Nagar
480.89
484.75
2.29
276.03
763.07
4.
Aligarh
496.15
358.95
1.44
**
360.39
5.
Agra
491.69
397.26
13.15
**
410.41
Total
2458.45
2126.02
21.50
557.74 2705.26
(Source: Lease deeds of land for development and reply of the Department)
* to be recovered from Concessionaire when EDC is intimated by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.
** to be paid by Concessionaire at the time of development.
22
23
24
25
Laing DSC Joint Venture, Jaiprakash Industries Limited and Techni Bharti Limited.
Techni Bharti Limited submitted the bid late by 20 minutes.
The technical bids were to be evaluated and shortlisted on the basis of technical competence, experience of
implementing/ executing construction works and financial parameters such as net worth, ability to raise resources
including debt funds, cash flows etc.
Promoters Agreement was to be executed in case of equity participation by YEIDA whereas Concession
Agreement was to be executed in both cases i.e. with or without equity participation by YEIDA.
58
The conceived project (March 2001) initially included the existing

Expressway from Noida to Greater Noida (25 km) and construction of
expressway from Greater Noida to Agra by the Concessionaire. The
Concessionaire constructed the Yamuna Expressway (Greater Noida to Agra)
during November 2006 to July 2012 at the cost of ` 9,962 crore26 which was
opened for public use in August 2012.
Clause 3.4 and 3.7 of the Concession Agreement stated that in consideration of
capital cost of Expressway between Noida and Greater Noida, YEIDA was to
grant leave and licence to the Concessionaire to use it for concession during
the Concession period. The capital cost of this already constructed expressway
should be treated as interest free loan to the Concessionaire which should be
repaid by the concessionaire to YEIDA in fifteen equal yearly instalments
starting from eleventh year of concession period. Concessionaire was also
entitled to collect and retain fee from the users of Expressway during the terms
of Concession Agreement. However, the Expressway was yet to be handed
over to the SPV (January 2014).
The IIDD/Government stated (January 2014) that to meet the public demand
for not levying toll on the Noida-Greater Noida Expressway, the
Concessionaire proposed (August 2012) that they would not levy toll tax on
this segment provided they would be given liberty not to pay capital cost and
O&M cost of this portion of Expressway. No decision has, however, been
taken by the Government so far (January 2014) on the proposal of the
Concessionaire.
Audit findings
3.4.4 During examination of the records, we found various pre-bid and postbid deficiencies as discussed in the succeeding paragraphs:
Pre-bid deficiencies
3.4.5 We found various deficiencies in the pre-bid stage, such as absence of
mechanism for assessing the reasonableness of concessions, non-identification
of land parcels, dilution of the principle of Public Private Partnership (PPP)
and lack of control over the profit margin of the concessionaire, which have
been discussed below:
No mechanism to assess the reasonableness of concessions
3.4.6 The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, GoUP had advised
(July 2002) the Infrastucture and Industrial Development Department (IIDD)
to first prepare a Techno Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) to ensure the
feasibility of the project and then invite bids for preparation of DPR and
execution of the project. It further advised to make a provision in the bid
document that as soon as the Concessionaire gets 20 per cent Return on Equity
(ROE) on the project from toll collection and land development rights, the
concession period would be over and the assets shall be automatically
transferred to YEIDA because if profit of the Concessionaire is not limited,
the Concessionaire shall always show less toll income in the TEFR and get
development rights on more land and shall continue to earn profit from toll
revenue.
26
The reply of the IIDD furnished in January 2014.
59
We noticed that IIDD/Government neither prepared any draft feasibility report

to work out a tentative concession period nor made provisions in the bid
document in consonance with the suggestions of the Department of Finance,
GoUP. YEIDA estimated the cost of construction of the Expressway at
` 1,680 crore in 2002-03. Rather than following the instructions of the
Finance Department, YEIDA invited bids on parameters as discussed in
Paragraph no 3.4.2.
The IIDD/Government in its reply (January 2014) did not render any
justification for non-compliance of the advice of the Finance Department
which was a pre-requisite for implementing the project on the principles of
PPP.
Thus, it is clear that no mechanism was devised to ascertain the
reasonableness of the concession period quoted by the bidders.
Non-identification of locations of land parcels and unjustified allotment of
land parcel at Noida
3.4.7 Clause 1.5 of the bid document provided that the Expressway would pass
through virgin area along the River Yamuna and land27 for development shall
be offered to the developer, as per its request and choice and subject to
availability, along the Expressway. The locations of land parcels for
development, however, were not even tentatively identified by YEIDA/IIDD
at the pre-bid stage so as to assess the value of land being given as a
concession, so as to arrive at a reasonable profit margin for the
Concessionaire.
We noticed that in the absence of tentative pre-identification of locations of
land parcels, the Concessionaire, at his own, identified a land parcel at prime
location of Noida28 which was handed over to it at acquisition cost. This land
parcel was along the existing Noida-Greater Noida Expressway, which was
already developed and was also not in the virgin area to be covered by the
Yamuna Expressway, as laid down in Clause 1.5 of the bid document.
Moreover, the Concessionaire has not taken over the existing Noida- Greater
Noida Expressway and asked for liberty from paying the O&M cost and
capital cost on the same, allotment of land parcel of 498.93 hectare at Noida
along this existing Expressway was not justified.
No reply has been received on the issue from the IIDD/Government.
Ambiguous provisions in the bid
3.4.8 We noticed that the YEIDA/IIDD took certain decisions at pre-bid stage
which diluted the very spirit of execution of the project on PPP mode as
discussed below:
x
27
28
The bid document (Clause 1.8) provided an option to the bidders to

execute the project either on JVC basis with 25 per cent equity
contribution from YEIDA and 75 per cent equity contribution from the JV
partner or exclusively by the JV partner without any equity contribution
from YEIDA. This provision in the bid allowing two alternatives to the
bidder gave room to YEIDA to escape from equity participation in the
project and sharing of risks, benefits and responsibilities. This decision
was against the principles of PPP as there was no return possible to the
25 million square meters or 2500 hectares.
Sectors 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134 and 151.
60
public sector and gave the bidders 100 per cent control free decision
making.
x
While there would be no profit sharing in the 100 per cent equity option,
we noticed that the IIDD/Government did not make any provision in the
bid requiring the bidders to mandatorily quote the concession period
separately in case the bidder opts for (i) equity participation in the ratio of
25:75 by the YEIDA and the Concessionaire; and (ii) 100 per cent equity
contribution by the Concessionaire only. As concession period for both
options would be different from point of view of ROE/IRR and financial
impact, the bid document was deficient to that extent. Not assessing the
reasonableness of the concession period for both options, the
IIDD/Government compromised the transparency and accountability in all
transactions relating to award and management of the project.
The IIDD/Government stated (January 2014) that there was provision in the
bid document for alternate option to the bidder to take the project on its own
with 100 per cent equity contribution and all the bidders had the preknowledge of this condition. No changes have been made during the bidding
process on/after the award of the bid.
The reply does not address the audit observation on the lack of due diligence
by not providing condition in the bid to quote the concession period separately
for with and without equity participation by the YEIDA. The due diligence has
not kept in view the interest of the Public Sector Entity (YEIDA).
Absence of conditions in the bid to allow reasonable margin
3.4.9 In the absence of own TEFR, the YEIDA invited offers for (i)
development of Techno-Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) and Detailed
Project Report (DPR); (ii) arrangement of finances; and (iii) construction and
operation of the Expressway. In such a situation, it was in public interest to
place caps29 on the concession period as advised by the Department of Finance
and discussed in paragraph 3.4.6. We noticed that no caps on concession
period were placed in the bid documents to ensure that the Concessionaire
receives only reasonable return30 on his investment.
No reply was furnished by the IIDD/Government on the issue.
Post-bid deficiencies
3.4.10 We examined the records related to the bid evaluation process and
TEFR/DPR prepared/submitted by the concessionaire and found that the
IIDD/Government did not exercise due diligence while approving the decision
for relinquishment of equity participation of YEIDA and accepted the
TEFR/DPR of the Concessionaire without analysing the financial pros and
cons as discussed below:
x
The IIDD/Government approved the bid in favour of JIL on 23 January

2003 without first taking the option from JIL as to whether it would
implement the project on JVC basis with equity in the ratio of 75:25 or
would implement it exclusively without any equity participation by
YEIDA. JIL exercised the option of exclusive implementation of project
29
As suggested by the Finance Department, GoUP in July 2002.

Say IRR of 15 per cent as allowed in the Report of the Core Group of Financing of the National Highways
Development Programme (NHDP) or ROE of 20 per cent as advised by the Finance Department, GoUP in 2002
based on actual return of Noida Toll Bridge or ROE of 14 per cent and 15 per cent as provided for private power
projects which have long time frames and are capital intensive.
30
61
without equity participation from the YEIDA on the same day i.e. 23
January 2003. This shows a clear lack of scrutiny at Government level
while finalising the bid. Moreover, relinquishment of equity participation
after acceptance of the bid was irregular and tantamounts to extending
undue favour to JIL.
x
The IIDD/YEIDA did not analyse the financial pros and cons of executing
the project with or without equity participation of YEIDA. There was no
examination whether implementation of the project without equity
participation of YEIDA was in public interest or not. While YEIDA would
have shared the risks to the extent of equity participation of 25 per cent it
would also have earned YEIDA ` 872.94 crore31 up to 31 March 201332
on account of toll revenue and income from land development rights.
Further, YEIDA would continuously be deprived of sharing of the profits
which would accrue in future for the whole life of the SPV.
Moreover, while accepting the relinquishment of equity, the IIDD/

Government even did not exercise due diligence like providing conditions
in the Concession Agreement to retain control and access of
YEIDA/Government over the records relating to transactions made for
implementation of both the land development and toll collection rights.
Thus lack of due diligence on the part of IIDD/Government was against
the concept of transparency and accountability in all transactions relating
to award and management of PPP projects. This was also detrimental to
the financial interest of YEIDA and also against public interest.
The IIDD/Government did not furnish any reply (April 2014).

High Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
3.4.11 As per clause 3.5 of the Concession Agreement, the Concessionaire
was required to submit TEFR/DPR within two years of signing the Concession
Agreement. We noticed that:
x
Though the concession agreement was signed on 7 February 2003 YEIDA

directed (November 2006) the Concessionaire to submit TEFR and the
Concessionaire submitted TEFR in November 200633 i.e. 3.5 years after
the signing of concession agreement,
In the above TEFR (which was prepared by the Concessionaire in January

2003) an Internal Rate of Return34 (IRR) of 21 per cent was shown and
considered attractive by the Concessionaire.
This TEFR was updated in December 2006 wherein IRR of 26 per cent
was considered as attractive by the Concessionaire.
The IRR of 26 per cent was already higher than the 20 per cent ROE35 stated
by the Finance Department, GoUP as being reasonable. The same is also
higher than the IRR of 15 per cent allowed in the Report of the Core Group of
Financing of the National Highways Development Programme (NHDP) and
Return on equity (ROE) of 15 per cent36 being allowed on long term and
31
32
33
34
35
36
Being 25 per cent of the Accumulated General Reserve (` 237.92 crore) and Surplus (` 3,253.77 crore) as per
Balance Sheet as on 31 March 2013 of the SPV.
From incorporation of SPV in October 2007 till 31 March 2013.
Prepared in January 2003.
Internal rate of Return is the rate at which the present value of cash outflow and inflow will be equal.
ROE of 20 per cent was allowed in Noida Toll Bridge as stated by Finance Department, GoUP in July 2002.
15 per cent as allowed by the State Government for Power Sector Companies (average of 14 per cent till March
2009 and 15.5 per cent since April 2009).
62
capital intensive private sector power projects in the State. The

IIDD/Government did not take these factors into account before approving a
project with such a high IRR and accepted the same without analysing the
financial impact of the same.
In the both the TEFRs, the Concessionaire proposed to ignore profitability of
the toll collection from users of the Expressway during concession period
citing various constraints/factors affecting the traffic volume37. The same was
accepted by the IIDD/Government without evaluating the fact that the plea of
the Concessionaire to ignore the revenue from toll collection on the basis of
constraints affecting the traffic volume, was in contravention to the DPR
wherein the traffic was estimated by the Concessionaire itself.
Ignoring the revenue from toll, the Concessionaire proposed Cash inflow from
revenue from sale of land on As is where is basis, and proposed an year wise
Cash outflow on the expenditure on construction of the Expressway, for the
period of six years from 2006-07 to 2011-2012 which is summarised in the
table below:
Table 3.3: Details of Cash inflow and Cash outflow
(` in crore )
Year ending
Up to
March
2007
During
2007-08
During
2008-09
During
2009-10
During
2010-11
During
2011-12
Total
Cash Outflow
532
1070
800
800
800
486
4488
Cash Inflow
350
700
825
1150
1100
1000
5125
Excess/ (Short fall)
(182)
(370)
25
350
300
514
Cumulative
(Short fall)
(182)
(552)
(527)
(177)
123
637
--
--
--
--
--
--
26
per
cent
Excess/
Internal Rate of Return
(Source: TEFR prepared by the Concessionaire)
In the above cash outflow acquisition cost of the land for Expressway and
development, construction cost of Yamuna Expressway and other incidental
expenses including cost of funds aggregating to ` 4,488 crore were included
and were to be met out from the cash inflow of ` 5,125 crore by way of sale of
land on As is where is basis. Thus, the Concessionaire, based on their own
projection of cash outflow and inflow, proposed to meet the construction cost
of the Yamuna Expressway and earn an attractive 26 per cent IRR on their
investment from the sale of land provided for development.
We noticed that IIDD/Government did not evaluate the pros and cons of the
TEFR submitted by the Concessionaire wherein cash inflow from sale of all
the five land parcels on As is where is basis was shown ` 5,125 crore during
2006-07 to 2011-12. We found that at the time of preparation of TEFR, the
37
(i) Development of township along expressway, alternative modes of travels, development of economic mode of
travel may adversely affect the traffic on expressway; (ii) Tendency of people to use other roads to save toll rather
use the toll expressway; (iii) Traffic on account of Taj Economic Zone and Taj International Airport cannot be
taken for granted; (iv) Shifting of traffic from existing network of roads/highways to the expressway cannot be
fairly estimated; and (v) Operation and maintenance may become expensive in future.
63
value of the land parcel of Noida alone was ` 5,718.30 crore38. If value of all
the other four land parcels is added at their circle rates, the total Cash inflow
from sale of all land parcels will be very high. Hence the possibility that the
actual IRR may be higher than estimated IRR of 26 per cent cannot be ruled
out. This contention is supported by the fact that our check of some samples39
of the land sold so far by the SPV at Gautam Buddha Nagar show that the sale
is at par with the current prescribed circle rates of land. The value of land
parcel of Noida alone i.e., ` 5,718.30 crore on the date of preparation of TEFR
was able to meet the total project cost of ` 4,488 crore as estimated in the
TEFR with IRR of more than 26 per cent; the allotment of other four land
parcels were additional benefit given to the Concessionaire.
Fixation of Higher Toll Rates
3.4.12 Since the satisfactory IRR of 26 per cent as calculated by the
Concessionaire was exclusive of the toll collection, it was in public interest to
fix the toll rates in such a manner so as to enable the Concessionaire to meet
only operation and maintenance cost and ensure that the toll collection did not
become an additional source of monetary benefit to the Concessionaire over
and above the already higher IRR of 26 per cent.
Even though the IIDD/Government had the knowledge of the high IRR which
excluded toll collection, despite this the toll rates40 were fixed at rates which
would, after deducting O&M expenses, give an additional income to
Concessionaire over and above the IRR of 26 per cent. As a result the
Concessionaire has already earned ` 118.46 crore41 from toll collection during
the period from August 2012 to January 2014 (one year and six months). This
amount is after deducting the actual O&M expenses of ` 49.03 crore from the
actual toll collection of ` 167.49 crore for the period.
Thus, lack of due diligence on the part of IIDD/Government to fix the toll at
rates to meet only the O&M cost led to undue benefit to the Concessionaire in
the form of toll collections, over and above the already high IRR of 26 per
cent.
The IIDD/Government did not furnish any reply on this issue.
38
Land allotted at Noida

Nature
Area
(Sqm)
Residential
Commercial
Total
39
4788000
201300
4989300
(498.93
Hectare)
DM circle rate effective from

July 2006 circulated by DM
Gautam Buddha Nagar
(per sqm)
9000
70000
Value
(` in
crore)
Remarks
4309.20
1409.10
5718.30
Area of residential
and commercial has
been derived as per
master plan
Three plots measuring 50 acres each at Mirzapur land parcel, Gautam Budha Nagar sold to Gaursons Realtech
Private Limited at Circle rate in 2013.
40
Type of
vehicle
Car
Bus
LCV
HCV
MAV
41
Toll rate at JEWAR

(From 0 km to 48 km)
`
`
`
`
`
Toll rate at MATHURA

(From 48 km to 110 km)
`
`
`
`
`
100
300
150
300
450
120
400
200
400
600
Toll rate at AGRA

(From 110 km to 164.3
km)
` 100
` 350
` 150
` 350
` 550
Toll collected: ` 58.78 crore minus O&M cost: ` 18.76 crore for eight months from August 2012 to March 2013
= ` 40.02 crore and Toll collected: ` 108.71 crore minus O&M cost: ` 30.27 crore for ten months from April
2013 to January 2014 = ` 78.44 crore. Total margin accrued from Toll Collection Rights = ` 40.02 crore plus
` 78.44 crore = ` 118.46 crore.
64
Other Concessions
Exemption of stamp duty passed on prior to notification
3.4.13 The Secretary, IIDD conveyed (28 February 2003) to Chief Executive
Officer of YEIDA (CEO) the permission of the GoUP to exempt the
Concessionaire from paying stamp duty on registration of lease deeds of land
allotted to it. On the basis of this letter stamp duty exemption worth ` 9.98
crore42 on registration of 241.5123 hectare land43 registered from February
2003 to July 2003 was extended by the concerned Sub-Registrars. This
exemption in stamp duty was irregular as the Government can remit stamp
duty only by a notification under Section 9 44 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
which had not been issued on the dates of registration.
Consequently, the GoUP issued (17 November 2007) a notification (with
retrospective effect from 13 February 2003), for exemption of stamp duty
chargeable on the instruments of transfer of land to projects where investment
of ` 750 crore or more has been made, provided the project is in public
interest and remission is necessary to make the project financially viable.
Further, the Secretary, IIDD, GoUP certified 45 (November 2007) that the
project is covered by the Notification of November 2007 and remission in
stamp duty on registration of lease deeds may be allowed accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid orders and notification the concerned Sub-registrars,
did not charge stamp duty from the Concessionaire on registrations of land
allotted to the Concessionaire for commercial, amusement, industrial,
institutional and residential development.
We noticed that the terms and conditions of the bid document and the
Concession Agreement did not provide for any exemption from stamp duty,
hence, the Concessionaire submitted their bid without considering such
exemption and permitting this concession post facto was undue benefit to the
Concessionaire
The IIDD/Government in reply (January 2014) stated that an in principal
approval was given in February 2003 for big development projects of ` 750
crore or more shall be given exemption of stamp duty. The exemption was
given in accordance with above policy decision of the State Government.
We do not accept the reply as the exemption on stamp duty as per Notification
of November 2007 was to be given if such an exemption is necessary to make
a project financially viable. This PPP project was giving an IRR of 26 per cent
and was already financially viable. Moreover, Stamp duty exemption was not
a condition in the bid document and post facto extension of such a concession
to an already financially viable project was an undue favour. The extension of
the exemption of stamp duty on registration of land transferred prior to the
issuance of notification under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was
also totally irregular.
42
43
44
45
Stamp duty at the rate of 8 per cent of acquisition cost of ` 124.77 crore
Allotted in Noida during the period from February 2003 to July 2003.
Power to reduce, remit or compound duties Government may, by rule or order published in the Official Gazette
reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, in the whole or any part of the territories under its
administration the duties with which any instruments or any particular class or instruments, or any of the
instruments belonging to such class, or any instruments when executed by or in favor of any particular class of
persons, by or in favor or any members of such class, are chargeable.
Vide letter number 4363/77-4-07-227N/07 dated 28 November 2007.
65

3.5
Non-deduction of Building and Other Construction Workers

Welfare Cess
The Development Authorities failed to deduct Cess amounting to

` 3.35 crore from the bills of the contractors.
The Government of India (GoI) enacted the Building and Other Construction
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996
(Act) to regulate the employment and conditions of service of building and
other construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare
measures and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The
GoI enacted the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act,
1996 (Cess Act) which provided for levy and collection of a cess46 on the cost
of construction incurred by employers. The GoI also framed the Building and
Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 (Cess Rules) in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Cess
Act.
The aforesaid Acts and Rules were made applicable in the State of Uttar
Pradesh with the notification (February 200947) of the Uttar Pradesh Building
and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of
Service) Rules, 200948 (Rules) by the State Government. The State
Government also constituted (November 200949) the Uttar Pradesh Building
and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (Board) under Section 18 of
the Act.
Rule 4 (3) of the Cess Rules provides that where the levy of cess pertains to
building and other construction work of a Government or of a PSU, such
Government or the PSU shall deduct or cause to be deducted the Cess payable
at the notified rates from the bills paid for such works. The State Government
also clarified (February 201050) that the amount of cess shall be deducted from
the bills presented for payment and deposited with the Welfare Board in the
same manner and spirit as is done in case of income tax deducted at source.
We noticed that:
x
Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) entered into 10 agreements for

execution of building and other construction works during the period
March 2009 to August 2010 and made payments of ` 327.91 crore against
the said agreements up to March 2013. The GDA, however, did not deduct
Cess of ` 3.28 crore from the bills of the contractors (Appendix-28) and
deposited (till March 2014) Cess of ` 2.76 crore51 from its own sources
(` 1.92 crore deposited after being pointed out by Audit).
The GDA stated (December 2013) that Cess was not deducted from the
bills of the contractors, as at the time of execution of agreements it was not
mentioned that Cess would be paid by the contractors.
46
47
48
49
50
51
At such rate not exceeding two per cent, but not less than one per cent.
Notification No. 143/36-2-2009-251 (,l,e)/95 dated 04 February 2009.
Framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 40 read with Section 62 of the Act.
Notification No. 1411/36-2-2009-251(,l,e)/95 dated 20 November 2009.
Order No. 392/36-2/2010 dated 26 February 2010.
September 2011 - ` 15.99 lakh, December 2011 - ` 68.34 lakh and September 2013 - ` 192.16 lakh.
66
The reply is not acceptable as the Cess Act and Cess Rules were made
applicable in the State from February 2009, hence, incorporating a suitable
clause enabling deduction of Cess from the bills of the contractors in all
the agreements was the duty of the GDA.
Thus, deposit of Cess by GDA from its own sources without deducting the
same from the bills of the contractors has not only resulted in noncompliance of the provisions of the Cess Act and Cess Rules but also
resulted in undue favour to the contractors and loss of ` 2.76 crore to the
GDA. Moreover, the GDA is also liable for interest and penalty on ` 0.52
crore52, being short deposit of Cess, under Section 8 and 9 of the Cess Act.
x
Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) entered into five agreements for

execution of building and other construction works during the period
February 2009 to June 2010 and made payments of ` 10.12 crore against
the said agreements up to March 2013 but did not deduct Cess of ` 10.12
lakh from the bills of the contractors (Appendix-28).
On this being pointed out, the KDA deposited (September 2013 to
December 2013) Cess of ` 3.29 lakh53 pertaining to three agreements, after
deducting the same from the subsequent bills of the contractors. As regards
non-deduction of Cess of ` 6.83 lakh pertaining to the remaining two
agreements, the KDA stated (October 2013) that as the agreements were
executed before the GoUP notification dated 20 September 2009, Cess was
not deducted.
The reply is not acceptable as the GoUP notification making the Cess Act and
Cess Rules applicable in the State was issued on 4 February 2009 and not on
20 September 2009, hence, Cess was required to be deducted from the bills of
the contractors in case of all agreements executed after 4 February 2009.
Thus, failure of the KDA to deduct the amount of Cess from the bills of the
contractors has not only resulted in non-compliance of the provisions of the
Cess Act and Cess Rules but also amounted to undue favour to the contractors
to that extent. Moreover, the KDA is also liable for payment of interest and
penalty on ` 6.83 lakh54 being short deposit of Cess under Section 8 and 9 of
the Cess Act.
The matter was reported to the Government in June 2013; the reply is awaited
(February 2014).
3.6
Systemic failure to ensure compliance of Government Orders
The Development Authorities failed to take concrete steps to develop a

system to ensure compliance of the Government Orders regarding
reservation and concession in fee to children of families below poverty
line.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) ordered (April 1996) that the Uttar
Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Parishad) and Development Authorities
52
53
54
Cess due - ` 3.28 crore (one per cent of payment to contractors) minus Cess deposited - ` 2.76 crore = ` 0.52
crore.
September 2013- ` 1.41 lakh, October 2013- ` 1.86 lakh and December 2013 - ` 0.02 lakh.
Cess due - ` 10.12 lakh (one per cent of payment to contractors) minus Cess deposited - ` 3.29 lakh = ` 6.83
lakh.
67
(DAs) shall allot plots to educational institutions at concessional rates55. In

public interest, GoUP further ordered (June 2009) that it shall be mandatory
for such educational institutions, which have been allotted or are being allotted
plots at concessional rates in schemes of the Parishad or DAs, to admit
children of families of all sections of the society living below poverty line, by
reserving 10 per cent seats and to allow 50 per cent concessions in total fee to
them. The Parishad and the DAs were expected to ensure strict compliance of
the aforesaid system.
We during audit of DAs56 noticed that they have allotted (1999 to 2010) 51
plots to educational institutions at concessional rates and have allowed a total
concession of ` 83.54 crore as detailed in table below:
Table 3.4: Details of allotment of plots to educational institutions
Sl.
No.
Name of the Authority
Period
No. of educational
institutions
allotted plots at
concessional rates
Amount of
concession
allowed
(` in crore)
1.
Ghaziabad Development Authority

(GDA)
2007 to 2010
22
44.62
2.
Kanpur
(KDA)
Authority
1999 to 2010
12
17.11
3.
Agra Development
(ADA)
Authority
2007 to 2010
17
21.81
51
83.54
Development
Total
To ensure that the educational institutions are complying with the conditions
regarding reservations in admissions and fee concessions to students of
deprived classes, as per the provisions of the Government Order, it was
essential that the DAs develop a proper system.
The DAs, however, instead of taking concrete measures and developing a
proper system to ensure strict compliance of the Government Orders took only
the following measures:
x issued directions to the schools to display the provisions of the
Government Orders at the school gate; and
x incorporated a clause in the allotment letters/ lease deeds requiring the
educational institutions to comply with the provisions the Government
Orders.
On this being pointed out by Audit:
x The GDA stated (September 2013) that notices are issued to the
educational institutions, from time to time to comply with the provisions of
the Government Order; inspection is also done from time to time; if any
complaint is received it intervenes and disposes off the complaints; and
articles are published in newspapers regarding reservations and
concessions to be allowed by the educational institutions.
x The KDA constituted (January 2014) a committee, to ensure compliance
of the conditions of the Government Orders, which shall present a
quarterly report on which necessary action shall be taken by the KDA.
55
56
At 40 per cent and 50 per cent of sector rate for primary/secondary schools and degree/ professional colleges
respectively.
Ghaziabad Development Authority, Agra Development Authority and Kanpur Development Authority.
68
The reply of the Development Authorities corroborates our observation that

the DAs had taken only random measures and had not developed any proper
and regular system to ensure the compliance of the Government Order, as no
results of inspections done and action taken were made available.
The matter was reported to the Government and Management in August 2013;
replies of the Government and ADA have not been received (February 2014).
In view of the social objective of the scheme we recommend that the DAs
should develop a system to periodically obtain information regarding total
number of available seats, seats reserved for children of the targeted
beneficiary class, total number of children admitted by the schools against
such reservation and concession in fee given to such children; examine the
records of the educational institutions to verify the correctness of information
furnished by them and put in place a grievance redressal cell to ensure strict
and regular compliance of the Government Order by the educational
institutions which have been allotted land at concessional rates.
Lucknow
The
(SMITA S. CHAUDHRI)
Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit),
Uttar Pradesh
Countersigned
New Delhi
The
(SHASHI KANT SHARMA)

69
Appendices
Appendix 1
(Referred in paragraph 1.8.2)
Statement showing details of outstanding Inspection Reports and paragraphs
Sl.
No.
Name of Department
(1)
(2)
Housing and Urban Planning
Infrastructure and Industrial
Development
Small Scale Industries and
Export Promotion
Information Technology and
Electronics
Forest
Energy
Co-operative
Cane Development
Tourism
Environment
Khadi and Village Industries
Handloom and Textile
Industries
Dairy Development
Science and Technology
Civil Aviation
Madya Nishedh
Revenue (except Collectorate)
Additional
Sources
of
Energy/Non-conventional
Energy
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
No. of IRs
outstanding
as on 30 Sep
2013 (issued
upto 31 Mar
2013)
(3)
88
72
No. of
outstanding
Paragraphs
Year from
which
paragraphs
outstanding
(4)
(5)
2008-09
2007-08
--
--
--
--
1054
1
25
42
8
4
4
20
3204
1
20
92
31
20
26
65
64
4
5
3
22
4
209
28
18
4
41
32
1420
4637
681
165
71
No. of IRs
outstanding
for more than
five years at
the end of Sep
2013
(6)
-5
No. of
Paragraphs
outstanding for
more than five
years at the end
of Sep 2013
(7)
-7
--
--
--
--
--
--
2004-05
2012-13
2007-08
2008-09
2007-08
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
530
-1
-1
----
1348
-1
-5
----
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2007-08
2009-10
----2
--
----5
--
539
1366
Appendix-2
(Referred to in paragraph 2.1.13)
Statement showing details of amount collected by the Divisions
(Amount in `)
Year
Amount collected
Others
Total
Compensatory
Afforestation
Net Present
Value
Additional
Compensatory
Afforestation
Penal
Compensatory
Afforestation
Catchment
Area
Treatment
2002
1498400
197800
--
--
--
--
1696200
2003
2730350
10452256
--
734600
--
--
13917206
2004
13997219
41441535
--
--
--
--
55438754
2005
197329267
289085300
--
--
--
--
486414567
2006
310253283
436771070
--
--
--
1503960
748528313
2007
189899583
532495585
3751641
--
--
646577758
1372724567
2008
87477403
199368376
--
--
853000
113158
287811937
2009
134657372
133508694
962153
2950966
--
2634750
274713935
2010
93710996
112215697
666064
--
--
222800
206815557
2011
142262398
567772276
838900
282400
1683000
892600
713731574
2012
55420369
53053416
822047
17745
984000
994400
111291977
Total
1229236640
2376362005
7040805
3985711
3520000
652939426
4273084587
72
Appendix -3
Statement showing delay in remittance of funds by the Divisions to UP
State CAMPA
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Name of Agency
Airport Authority of India
Bharti Airtel Limited
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
GAIL India Limited
Green Gas Limited
GRS Hotel
Hindalco
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
HUTCH
Idea Tele services
Indian Army
Indian Railways
Indian Oil Corporation
Irrigation Department
Lanco Infratech Limited
Meerut Development Authority
Northern Coalfields Limited
National Highways Authority of India
NRL
National Thermal Power Corporation
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
Reliance
RES
SJP GLOBAL
Tata Tele Services Limited
U.P. Network Private Limited
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department
Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development
Corporation Limited
Total
73
Number
of cases
02
08
02
02
04
05
03
03
01
04
08
01
02
09
05
20
04
02
03
30
01
01
39
03
01
02
08
02
05
17
39
02
Amount
recovered
969300
6519605
124636
3601000
2443160
1669608
1047900
285233
1344300
303484
7401020
339480
102456503
25741842
159554
88197620
5078799
1422145
61894752
322801333
17100
258067360
54800266
39453
71100
228100
4993400
1932000
4901560
50906291
82862398
1842560
238
1094462862
Delay in
days
211-576
17-470
129
17
13-104
5-152
43-207
16
253
16-177
14-120
78
62-82
2-556
53-289
5-805
3-13
110
202
4-556
17
129
2-556
103-277
22
81
38-182
18-23
35-154
1-205
4-360
184
Appendix -4
Statement showing delay in remittance of funds by UP State CAMPA to
Ad-hoc CAMPA
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Name of the User Agency

Adani Aslogy Limited
Aircel Digilink India Limited
Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited
Bharti Airtel Limited
Bajaj Hindusthan Limited
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
DSNN Retail Outlet
Essar Oil Limited
GAIL India Limited
GDA
Green Gas Limited
Hi-tech Carbon
Hindalco Industries Limited
Hindustan Sugar and Industries
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
IBPCL
Idea Limited
Indian Army
Indian Oil Corporation
Indian Railways
Indraprastha Gas Limited
International College of Engineering
Irrigation Department
NA
Pautholi Retail Outlet
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
Rajiv Gandhi South Campus
RLN
Sahjawa Gas Steel Plant
Soumya Infotech Private Limited
Sashastra Seema Bal
Tata Teleservices Limited
U.P. Network Private Limited
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
Veterinary Hospital
Vodafone Essar Digilink Limited
Yamuna Expressway
Total
Number of
cases
01
01
01
04
03
07
01
01
01
16
01
01
03
02
01
17
06
05
02
36
12
02
02
06
03
90
01
17
39
01
01
02
01
05
02
05
25
88
01
03
03
419
74
Amount
1525788
92000
613859
3068710
861409
1347729
278300
95613
366858
22703156
3212600
992000
20850174
19906520
1338700
9635999
2699316
2677356
14981783
46474425
122778043
1416843
1580172
16296843
4935565
397005053
83132
17578589
44250270
357402
2944768
551400
1497000
53658520
2771200
7615058
54737201
410682671
50000
3847256
6308318
1304667599
Delay
(in days)
14
36
11
2-18
11-23
10-44
18
37
16
1-140
9
68
7-15
16-35
28
2-140
1-50
13-63
17-20
1-394
1-378
25-37
16
9-48
12-14
1-303
42
5-389
1-177
35
42
132
46
3-46
28-29
5-135
4-46
2-235
32
18-139
48-97
Appendix -5
Statement showing details of amount of Compensatory Afforestation utilised
by Awadh Forest Division without approval of Annual Plan of Operations
Name of project
Date of Approval
(Amount in `)
Amount of Compensatory
Afforestation
Area
(in
hectares)
Received
Spent
Balance
Widening of Lucknow-Kanpur
National Highway No. 25
(Kms. 7.9 to 11.38)
08B/UP/06/03/2004/FC/7551
Dated 22-08-2005
2.030
3515934
652934
2863000
Laying of underground gas

pipeline at Lucknow-Kanpur
Road (Kms. 12.5 to 15.00) by
Gail India Limited
08B/UP/109/56/2004/FC/979
Dated 10-11-2004
0.200
75942
75942
--
Widening of LucknowFaizabad National Highway

No. 28 (Kms. 8.25 to 16.70)
08 B/UP/06/68/2004/ FC/1020
Dated 19-11-2004
16.430
3737885
12400
3725485
Widening of Lucknow-Kanpur
National Highway No. 25
(Kms. 7.9 to 11.38)
08 B/UP/06/28/2006/FC/311
Dated 02-06-2006
0.414
770720
528120
242600
8100481
1269396
6831085
Total
75
19.074
Appendix -6
Statement showing cost of land equivalent to 10 meter strip
(Amount in `)
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Name of the
District
Lucknow
Barabanki
Faizabad
Basti
Gorakhpur
Gonda
Kushinagar
Sitapur
Orai
Kanpur
Meerut
Meerut
J.P. Nagar
J.P. Nagar
Unnao
National
Highway
Total area
(in hectares)
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
25
25
25
58
58
24
24
25
8.45
76.30
31.00
97.20
46.80
0.90
81.12
51.40
71.40
3.70
18.69
19.05
89.00
40.30
17.00
652.31
Date of
approval
Circle
rate per
hectare
Cost of land
22.11.2004 500000
4225000
19.11.2004 440000 33572000
22.11.2004 450000 13950000
13.05.2005 2471053 240186352
22.11.2004 741316 34693589
19.11.2004 625000
562500
22.11.2004 1235500 100223760
2005-06
395360 20321504
2006-07
200000 14280000
2.3.2006
650000
2405000
5.6.2007
800000 14952000
12.7.2006
800000 15240000
2006
741300
8154300
2005
741300 29874390
2006
500000
8500000
541140395
76
Appendix -7
Statement showing excess recovery of Net Present Value
(Amount in `)
Name of
the
Division
Name of the user agency
Forest
area
diverted
(in
hectare)
Category
of land/
Canopy
density
Rate
applicable
for
recovery
of NPV
Rate
charged
Excess
recovery
Bahraich
North Eastern Railways
4.29
Open
Class-III
626000
920000
1261260
Najibabad
Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited
20.57
Less than
0.4
750000
920000
3496900
Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways
0.06
0.1 to 0.2
750000
920000
10200
North Eastern Railways
11.19
Open
Class-III
626000
920000
3289860
Barabanki
Total
8058220
77
Appendix -8
Statement showing allocation of funds without linkage to funds collected
(` in lakh)
Name of the
Division
Agra
Aligarh
Allahabad
Awadh
Bahraich
Banda
Barabanki
Basti
Bulandshahar
Chitrakoot
Etawah
Faizabad
Fatehpur
Firozabad
Ghaziabad
Gonda
Gorakhpur
J.P. Nagar
Jhansi
Kaimoor Wildlife
Division
Kanpur
Kushinagar,
Padrauna
Lalitpur
Mathura
Meerut
Mirzapur
Muzaffarnagar
Najibabad
Obra
Orai
Raibareli
Renukoot
Saharanpur
Shahjahanpur
Shravasti
Sitapur
Unnao
Compensatory
Afforestation
funds received
597.03
226.17
117.83
356.65
37.47
176.66
349.35
1135.57
535.67
62.99
75.58
257.75
5.09
29.17
525.22
63.97
381.38
246.28
718.66
Compensatory Afforestation funds

allocated
2009-10
2010-11
Total
35.78
49.52
85.3
7.21
5.25
12.46
96.21
19.27
115.48
101.99
-101.99
-2.94
2.94
84.09
40.38
124.47
102.17
-102.17
670.47
149.84
820.31
4.17
9.74
13.91
8.04
2.58
10.62
30.53
21.43
51.96
148.55
100.23
248.78
96.78
0.06
96.84
28.33
20.67
49
-33.06
33.06
-5.75
5.75
240.39
45.34
285.73
-21.62
21.62
-95.28
95.28
Funds allocated
in per cent of
funds received
14.29
5.51
98.01
28.60
7.85
70.46
29.25
72.24
2.60
16.86
68.75
96.52
1902.55
167.98
6.29
8.99
74.92
8.78
13.26
179.24
65.59
---
2.45
14.08
2.45
14.08
1.37
21.47
350.27
683.05
156.06
462.68
118.3
396.4
191.48
354.93
388.23
114.43
774.07
1032.87
581.27
12.45
498.88
18.34
--22.43
--132.08
6.92
3.71
-18.39
2.39
0.16
-3.2
147.82
1.32
23.22
42.65
3.69
19.3
3.35
70.74
7.01
21.23
32.78
19.25
16.27
10.09
5.95
3.2
172.77
15.39
23.22
42.65
26.12
19.30
3.35
202.82
13.93
24.94
32.78
37.64
18.66
10.25
5.95
6.40
320.59
16.71
6.63
6.24
16.74
4.17
2.83
51.17
7.27
7.03
8.44
32.89
2.41
0.99
1.02
51.41
64.26
91.11
78
Appendix-9
Statement showing Department wise sanctioned cost and Executing Agency wise
allocation of funds
Name of the
Memorials
Name of the
Departments1
Sanctioned Cost
Amount
Samajik
Parivartan
Sthal
HUPD
100.00
191.14
14.03
191.14
100.00
1362.62
100.00
1362.62
100.00
531.49
71.58
531.49
100.00
DoC
96.42
12.99
96.42
100.00
PWD
114.54
15.43
106.04
92.58
8.50
7.42
742.45
100.00
733.95
98.86
8.50
1.14
448.83
97.84
405.79
90.41
43.04
9.59
9.93
2.16
9.93
100.00
458.76
100.00
415.72
90.62
43.04
9.38
1075.63
100.00
1063.74
98.89
11.89
1.11
1075.63
100.00
1063.74
98.89
11.89
1.11
918.55
100.00
918.55
100.00
918.55
100.00
918.55
100.00
4494.58
98.61
63.43
1.39
DoC
DoI
DoC
Total
HUPD
Total
Prerna Sthal
Per cent
Amount
1171.48
Total
Eco Garden
Per cent
85.97
HUPD
Bauddh
Vihar
Amount
(Amount: ` in crore)
Work to be executed
by other agencies2
1171.48
Total
Smarak
Sthal
Per cent
Work to be executed
by Uttar Pradesh
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam
Limited
NOIDA
Total
GRAND TOTAL
4558.01
(Source: Compiled from the records of Departments and EA)
Housing and Urban Planning Department (HUPD), Department of Culture (DoC), Public Works
Department (PWD), Department of Irrigation (DoI) and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA)
PWD: ` 45.60 crore (Smarak Sthal : ` 8.50 crore; Baudhh Vihar : ` 25.21 crore; and Eco Garden :
` 11.89 crore); DoI : ` 3.07 crore (Baudhh Vihar); Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited :
` 14.09 crore (Baudhh Vihar); and Construction and Design Services Wing of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam:
` 0.67 crore (Baudhh Vihar)
79
Appendix-10
Statement showing receipt and sanctions of Estimates by the PFAD/EFC
(` in lakh)
Name of
the
Project
Samajik
Parivartan
Sthal
Name of
Administrative
Department
Housing and
Urban Planning
Department
(HUPD)
Sl.
No.
Name of the Work
Date of receipt by
PFAD
Date of Meeting/
Approval by EFC
Date of return to
department
6 September 2007
10 September 2007
13 September 2007
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
7 December 2007
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
3 January 2008
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
3 March 2008
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
20 March 2008
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
2 May 2008
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
3 September 2008
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
1 January 2009
20 March 2009
10 June 2010
26 September 2007
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
29 December 2007
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
22 January 2008
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
13 March 2008
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
27 March 2008
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
16 May 2008
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
19 September 2008
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
2 January 2009
17 April 2009
25 June 2010
1 October 2007
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
31 December 2007
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
16 January 2008
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
17 March 2008
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
29 March 2008
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
21 May 2008
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
1 October 2008
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
7 January 2009
21 April 2009
9 July 2010
4 October 2007
38545.40
40463.32
3871.86
4068.97
4272.42
1302.74
1371.73
1400.37
20349.12
21387.65
22383.70
12172.81
12860.90
13268.53
884.09
929.22
965.58
17692.87
18863.98
19511.31
13603.68
14298.00
14882.65
12435.46
9 April 2008
21 July 2008
25 April 2008
20 November 2008
29 April 2008
20 November 2008
11805.16
696.00
21
22
23
24
25
Renovation, revitalisation
and additional new works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
12 Additional works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Screen wall work
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Stupa Bhawan work
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Gallery Bhawan work
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Steps work
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
4 New works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
7 New works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Art works at Parivartan
Sthal
Ist Revision
Art works at Atrium of
Main Smarak
Additional art works
Stupa Statue art works
Main Works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
IIIrd Revision
Additional Works
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Ist Estimate
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
Ist Estimate
Ist Revision
Amount
Sanction
by EFC
36682.81
7 January 2009
23 June 2009
26 September 2007
1 January 2009
2 April 2009
3 June 2010
1 January 2009
16 July 2009
3 June 2010
3 April 2008
7 January 2009
23 June 2009
14 January 2008
27 January 2009
9 January 2009
23 June 2009
1 October 2007
2 January 2009
15 May 2009
25 June 2010
2 January 2009
22 July 2009
25 June 2010
25 April 2008
9 January 2009
23 June 2009
14 January 2008
6 February 2009
9 January 2009
23 June 2009
4 October 2007
7 January 2009
18 May 2009
9 July 2010
7 January 2009
28 July 2009
9 July 2010
25 April 2008
13 January 2009
23 June 2009
18 January 2008
11 February 2009
5082.30
1530.21
25417.16
37306.59
39287.15
41186.25
7905.78
11479.13
11962.37
3188.51
5308.49
1144.74
3527.16
11454.42
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Ist Estimate
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
IIIrd Revision
Ist Estimate
Ist Revision
IInd Revision
IIIrd Revision
IV th Revision
Vth Revision
VI th Revision
VII th Revision
Cultural works
15 September 2009
18 December 2009
29 June 2010
14 January 2011
11 January 2008
27 May 2008
28 November 2008
1 June 2009
18 January 2009
11 September 2009
9 April 2010
11 November 2010
7 January 2009
16 September 2009
18 December 2009
16 July 2010
14 January 2011
14 January 2008
5 June 2008
1 December 2008
15 June 2009
31 July 2009
20 October 2009
20 April 2010
24 November 2010
9 January 2009
16 September 2009
21 December 2009
23 July 2010
19 January 2011
16 January 2008
10 June 2008
2 December 2008
19 June 2009
4 August 2009
28 October 2009
28 April 2010
14 December 2010
13 January 2009
15747.09
42464.87
83406.87
107562.50
8067.93
19307.26
24708.10
25900.63
27118.14
36056.20
38552.70
44883.48
992.54
2
34
4
10
Department of
Culture (DoC)
11
12
13
Smarak
Sthal
HUPD
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DoC
Eco
Garden
Bauddh
Vihar
Public Works
Department
(PWD)
HUPD
Department of
Irrigation
(DoI)
DoC
In Samajik Parivartan Stahl, first revision of all works of HUPD (17 April, 2009) were counted as single
estimate as it was for release of centage.
In Samajik Parivartan Sthal, second revision of all works of HUPD, and in Smarak Sthal third revision of
Main works of HUPD and second revision of additional works of HUPD (25 June 2010 ) were taken as single
estimate as it was for releasing deduction of 5 per cent on non scheduled items.
80
Electrical
Unit-1
MKRSS Site
Unit
MKRSS (EP)
Unit
Lohia Unit-2
Bhagidari
Bhawan
Unit - 15A
Unit-2A
WPU
Name of the
Unit
Date
M.N Express
11 July 2008
8 August 2009
22 August 2009
1 April 2010
13 May 2009
Pragati Marbles
Mohammad Khanna
Enterprises
Mohammad Khanna
Enterprises
Mohammad Khanna
Enterprises
Vinayak Mines and Minerals

Singh Associates
Goel Marbo Granite
21 August 2008
11 November 2008
29 December 2008
Goyal Senatry Stone
Lucknow Marble Industries
28 November 2008
3 December2008
New Nirman Constructions

New Nirman Constructions
1 September 2009
21 August 2009
15A/2008
Krishna Enterprises
25 September 2009
Gayatri Traders
Lucknow Marbles
Supreme Builders
3 August 2009
27 September 2009
18 July 2008
Lucknow Marbles
TPS Enterprises
Lucknow Marbles
Raj Kamal Marbles
Vaishno Stone Product
S.K. Marbles
Vaishno Stone Product
S.K. Marbles
A. Constructions
Name of the contractor
9 August 2009
2 April 2009
15 July 2009
15 October 2008
2 March 2009
1 September 2009
1 April 2009
3 June 2009
24 February 2008
13B/2008
No.
Agreement
81
Supply of good quality earth
P/F of 40 mm thick granite flooring

L/R for Mirzapur sandstone in cladding
L/R for Mirzapur sandstone in kerb stone
P/F of Bansi Paharpur sandstone in columns
P/F of ivory fantasy granite in benches

P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in 50 mm flooring
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in railing of ht. 850
mm as per Jalebi pattern
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in base stone of
railing
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in railing of ht. 850
mm as per Jalebi pattern
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in base stone of
railing
P/F of Bansi Paharpur in cladding
P/F of Bansi Paharpur in cladding
P/F of Bansi Paharpur Pink sand stone normal
carving
P/F of Granite stone of approved shade in
elephant pedestal
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink in cladding in
Smarak main dome and dome crown above ht.
of 25 mtrs.
P/F of ivory fantasy granite in benches
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in 75 mm flooring

P/F of granite benches
P/F of Bansi Paharpur red in drain cover
Supply of Mirzapur sandstone
P/F of Makrana pink marble stone
Supply of Mirzapur sandstone
P/F of ivory fantasy granite stone in benches
P/F of granite stone in gola galta in water body
Particulars
14660.46
20362.29
6665.82
10.00
413.88
182.25
122.89
1845.27
317.00
2397.66
3007.00
2393.76
cum
cum
cum
sqm
cft
cft
cft
sqm
sqm
cft
cft
cft
sqm
sqm
cft
660.20
493.89
1059.98
cft
1271.77
RM
RM
233.90
187.60
cft
sqm
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
Unit
315.35
885.60
1096.27
290.71
483.68
580.70
4047.37
362.10
4416.56
1060.60
136.03
Qty.
240
240
240
7300
1290
1630
3600
7300
7300
4950
7750
3150
2100
2100
1700
15000
1700
15000
6900
2150
7600
1700
6900
2545
170
16500
170
7600
7900
Rate
Executed Qty.
3518510
4886950
1599797
73000
533905
297068
442404
13470471
2314100
11868417
23304250
7540344
1386420
1037169
1801966
2814000
2162009
3508500
2175915
1904040
8331652
494207
3337392
1477882
688053
5974650
750815
8060560
1074637
Amount
195
195
195
6500
1200
1250
2545
6900
6500
4150
5500
2545
1900
1900
1615
14250
1615
14250
5200
1995
5200
Rate
approved
by EA
1200
5200
1925
150
16300
150
5200
5600
Statement showing excess payment to contractors due to non-observance of rates approved by the EA
Appendix-11
659721
20141490
916303
299962
4000
37249
69255
129649
738108
187745
1918128
6765750
1448225
132040
98778
90098
140700
108100
175425
536095
137268
1863659
659721
1579664
4000
65855
767389
742420
Amount
yet to be
recovered
145355
822256
360034
80947
72420
88331
1803020
312869
(Amount in `)
Recovery
made
21721154
916303
299962
8000
37249
69255
129649
738108
253600
1918128
6765750
1448225
132040
98778
90098
140700
108100
175425
536095
137268
2631048
145355
822256
360034
80947
72420
88331
2545440
312869
Excess
Payment
15 October
2008
6 November
2008
6 November
2008
6 November
2008
28 November
2008
30 November
2008
1 September
2009
41
45
48
52
36
46
Deveshwar
Enterprises
India Stone
Company
J.P. Stone
Industries
India Stone
Company
India Stone
Company
Chinmay
Constructions
J.P. Stone
Industries
India Stone
Company
Name of the
contractor
600.63
94.01
100.20
L/R for Mirzapur sandstone flooring

L/R for Mirzapur sandstone kerb stone
P/F of Bansi Paharpur sandstone cladding
595.00
139.65
373.23

P/F of Bansi Paharpur sandstone flooring
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone railing
376.02
897.51
1010.98
122.72

P/F of Bansi Paharpur sandstone flooring
P/F of Bansi Paharpur sandstone cladding
5709705.00
8925000.00
1351408.50
153229.78
192892.70
314201.25
727798.50
612917.49
2019397.50
1971411.00
236228.30
1316436.90
2806713.30
1335600.00
1898376.70
5701398.45
3812340.40
Amount
1615.00
14250.00
1750.00
1250.00
1900.00
1750.00
1900.00
1250.00
1750.00
1900.00
1900.00
1250.00
1250.00
1750.00
1050.00
1300.00
1050.00
Rate to be
awarded
285485.25
5211001.02
187249.00
5023752.00
446250.00
300313.00
35722.28
2505.10
69822.50
18661.50
142888.74
448755.00
50549.00
3067.90
306899.40
654325.80
296800.00
235911.70
1439283.45
473760.40
Excess
payment
(Amount in `)
82
In agreement no. 40 dated 15 October 2008 entered into with India Stone Company Labour rate for Mirzapur sandstone Jali was payable at ` 7,800 per sqm the rates for which were
approved by the EA only on 15 December 2008.
In agreement no. 2 entered into with New Nirman Construction on 01 September 2009 the rates for providing and fixing of Mirzapur sandstone railing of 850 mm height and Mirzapur
sandstone base stone for railing was payable at ` 14,250 per RM and ` 1,615 per cft respectively. These rates were approved by the EA only on 15 September 2009.
1700.00
15000.00
2250.00
1630.00
1925.00
2250.00
1950.00
1630.00
2250.00
1950.00
1925.00
1630.00
1630.00
2250.00
1199.00
1721.91
593.60
1583.30
807.63
1739.00
3278.55
Rate
awarded
1199.00
L/R for Mirzapur sandstone boundary

wall (Uncarved)
wall (Carved)
wall (Uncarved)
Particulars
Actual
executed
quantity
3179.60
P/F of Mirzapur sandstone in base stone

3358.65
TOTAL
Less: Partially recovered amount against agreement no. 40 dated 15 October 2008 entered into with India Stone Company
Excess expenditure
SPLM
15 October
2008
405
Unit-2
44
Date
No.
Name of the
Unit
Agreement
Statement showing details of excess expenditure due to undue favour to contractors
Appendix-12
83
Minimum Rates
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
7000
7000
Date on which such minimum rates paid

06 April 2009 to 8 August 2009
20 November 2009 to 24 June 2010
10 December 2010 to 30 April 2011
01 January 2011 to 30 June 2011
01 January 2011 to 30 June 2011
(Amount in `)
Excess payment
48000
96250
121450
113750
525000
30800
24220
500
2800
1500
876900
1489440
1433800
381100
144300
675740
140530
6106080
8691160
Amount
180000
338250
275450
399750
1845000
184800
456720
25500
142800
76500
2298900
3577440
3443800
999100
378300
2257740
469530
Total excess expenditure
Rate
3000
3075
3935
3075
3075
2640
2640
2550
2550
2550
4850
5140
5140
4850
4850
9990
9990
2585080
Qty
60
110
70
130
600
70
173
10
56
30
474
696
670
206
78
226
47
Add: Amount recovered by EA after being pointed out by Audit
Name of the Plant

Date of SO
Bottle Palm (12 ft. to 15 ft.)
10 May 2009
07 June 2009
16 June 2009
17 June 2009
01 August 2009
04 August 2009
19 December 2009
26 December 2009
06 January 2010
16 January 2010
Cycas Revoluta (1.5 ft. to 2 ft.)
26 April 2011
26 April 2011
Date Palm (6 ft. to 8 ft.)
01 May 2011
Date Palm (6 ft. to 8 ft.)
Total excess expenditure to be recovered
Statement showing excess expenditure due to variation in rates of purchase of plants
Appendix-13
Appendix-14
Statement showing details of excess VAT paid
(Amount in `)
Invoice date
Particulars
Quantity
1 June 2010
Stainless Steel
flats
101.36
450
45612
13.50
6157.62
5.00
2280.60
3877.02
1 June 2010
Stainless Steel
flats
49.83
450
22423.50
13.50
3027.17
5.00
1121.18
1906.00
27 July 2010
Stainless Steel
flats
873.54
450
393093.00
13.50
53067.56
5.00
19654.65
33412.91
Lohia
Unit-2
7 February 2009
Stainless Steel
angles and
plates
103752.16
725
75220316.00
12.50
9402539.50
4.00
3008812.64
6393726.86
Unit - 2A
20 January 2009
RCC pipe and

collars
245269.00
12.50
30658.63
4.00
9810.76
20847.87
26 October 2008
RCC pipe and

collars
348693.00
12.50
43586.63
4.00
13947.72
29638.91
26 March 2010
SS angle and
flat
2623.50
300
787050.00
13.50
106251.75
5.00
39352.50
66899.25
8 September 2009
M.S. pipe
2192.00
50
109600.00
13.50
14796.00
4.50
4932.00
9864.00
4 November 2008
M.S. Pipe
2680203.00
12.50
335025.38
4.00
107208.12
227817.26
Name of
the Unit
Unit 2
Pratapga
rh Unit
Rate
Amount
VAT
paid at
the rate
of
VAT paid
VAT
to be
paid at
the
rate of
VAT to be
paid
Excess
VAT paid
8 March 2009
Stainless Steel
Rod
55.50
250
13875.00
12.50
1734.38
4.00
555.00
1179.38
8 March 2009
Stainless Steel
flat
140.00
220
30800.00
12.50
3850.00
4.00
1232.00
2618.00
8 March 2009
Stainless Steel
Rod
23.00
250
5750.00
12.50
718.75
4.00
230.00
488.75
Pipes
2012292.00
12.5
251536.50
4.00
80491.68
171044.82
Total
81914976.50
3289628.85
6963321.03
17 January 2009
84
10252949.87
Appendix-15
(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.13 and 2.2.14)
Statement showing details of consultancy agreements entered by the EA, agreed fee and
payment thereon
Sl.
No.
Name of the Project
Consultant
Selected
Basis of
selection
Date of
agreement
Agreed fee
Consultant Fee paid

till date (` in crore)
Architect
Design
Bureau
Associates

a. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar
Smarak and Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar Library and Museum
b. Art Works
1.
c. Samtamulak Stupa Sangrahalaya
Tender
formalities
not carried
out
-do-
12 September
2008
-do-
e. Smarak Site Development (12

Additional works)
f. 4 New Works/ 7 New Works /
Steps work
-do-
No formal
agreement
-do-do-
28 November
2007
4 July 2008
-do-
21 July 2008
-do-
-do-
17
September
2009
24 April 2008
Prerna Sthal
a. Boundary wall
-do-
4 June 2008
b.
Central Park Plaza
-do-
c.
-do-
d.
External and internal

electrification
Elephant Gallery II
e.
Column Plaza
12 November
2008
26 November
2008
2 January
.2009
2 January
2009
20 January
2009
31 May 2001
c. Works financed by DoC

Eco Garden
3.
Bauddh Vihar
5.
f.
Ambedkar Statue
g.
Fountain, Ashokan Columns,

Pathway and public amenity
building
New Elephant Gallery, HDPE
pipeline, Elephant Gallery I,
Mirzapur sandstone footpath,
External development works,
Entrance gate
h.
Architect
Bureau
Design
Associates
Design
Associates
Design
Associates
Architect
Bureau
-do-doDesign
Associates
-do-do-
-do-
Total
5 October
2007
27 August
2008
15 July 2008
-do-
b. Works financed by PWD
4.
9 September
2007
d. Screen Wall
Smarak Sthal
a. Works financed by HUPD
2.
Architect
Bureau
Tender
No formal
agreement
` 1.85 crore
` 0.65 crore
7.93
2.13
4.67
1.27
--
1.63
--
1.06
1.5 per cent of

project cost
--
10.83
1.5 per cent of

project cost
2.73
1.61
--
8.23
15.33
26.76
1.5 per cent of

the actual cost of
work
1.5 per cent of
the actual cost of
work7
1.5 per cent of

project cost
0.5 per cent of

project cost
1.5 per cent of

project cost
1.5 per cent of

project cost8
No formal agreements to provide consultancy services for these works were executed with the Consultants; however, payments
were made at the rate of 1.5 per cent of the actual cost of work.
No formal agreements to provide consultancy services for these works were executed with the Consultants; however, payments
were made at the rate of 1.5 per cent of the project cost.
85
Appendix-16
Statement showing excess payment to consultants on repetitive works
(` in lakh)
Name of the
memorial/work
Particulars
Samajik Parivartan
Sthal
Screen Wall
04 New Works
Total Cost
of works
Screen wall
Ashokan Columns
Bronze capital on pillars
Electrical and plumbing work in
fountains
Granite columns
12 Additional Works
Cost of
Repetitive
works
Architect
fee to be
paid
Architect fee
paid
Excess
payment
1258.32
272.80
113.60
105.47
1232.95
255.75
106.50
98.88
3.46
0.90
0.37
0.35
18.87
4.09
1.70
1.58
15.41
3.19
1.33
1.23
191.01
167.13
0.78
2.87
2.09
40.00
30.00
0.23
0.60
0.37
1981.20
1891.21
6.09
29.71
23.62
Additional works
9019.47
597.83
127.82
135.29
7.47
Crash Barrier
2396.21
2347.39
6.60
35.94
29.34
592.36
589.67
1.51
8.89
7.38
1557.31
1535.63
4.16
23.36
19.20
156.83
310.66
153.98
295.87
0.43
0.96
2.35
4.66
1.92
3.70
115.30
337.20
57.65
236.04
1.01
2.11
1.73
5.06
0.72
2.95
1464.59
1084.07
8.42
21.97
13.55
107.99
80.99
0.61
1.62
1.01
1009.45
803.12
69.60
1740.00
975.80
602.34
48.72
1682.00
2.94
4.52
0.44
5.08
15.14
12.05
1.04
26.10
12.20
7.53
0.60
21.02
30.00
15.00
0.26
0.45
0.19
Watch tower
TOTAL
Smarak Sthal
Additional works financed
by Housing and Urban
Planning Department
Works financed by the
Public Works
Outside footpath along crash

barrier
Outside footpath along boundry
(1557.31 lakh)
VIP road hermica railing
Stone paving inside crash barrier
Works financed by
Department of Culture
Prerna Sthal
New Elephant Gallery
Ashokan Columns
Ambedkar Statue
Toilet block
Cost of Granite column (Ashokan
Column)
Cost of Fountain
Cost of Electrical work in
Fountain.
Cost of Elephant Pedestal.
Fountain 4 nos.
Elephant capital bronze 10 nos.
Mirzapur stone Elephant 30 nos.
of 15 ft. height
Mirzapur stone Elephant 2 nos.
of 7 ft. height
Bronze deepmala 2 nos. of 7 ft.
height
TOTAL
22.00
11.00
0.19
0.33
0.14
19732.09
10313.98
167.06
295.98
128.92
Bansi paharpur elephant features
770.00
731.50
2.41
11.55
9.14
Granite stone work in pedestals
228.33
216.91
0.71
3.42
2.71
397.31
382.03
1.18
5.96
4.78
71.99
213.16
61.13
69.22
204.96
45.85
0.21
0.64
0.34
1.08
3.20
0.92
0.87
2.56
0.58
11.07
30.00
1782.99
8.30
22.50
1681.27
0.06
0.17
5.72
0.17
0.45
26.75
0.11
0.28
21.03
23496.28
13886.46
178.87
352.44
173.57
Granite stone free standing

columns
Granite stone base
Bronze capitals
Granite stone free standing
columns
Granite stone base
Bronze capitals
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
86
Appendix-17
Statement showing dismantling of structures and expenditure incurred thereon
(` in crore)
Sl.
No
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Particulars
Structure dismantled
Cost of structure
dismantled
(` in crore)
Value of scrap recovered
(` in crore)
Period of dismantling
executed
Date of Government order
for dismantling prior to
Administrative approval
Date of Administrative
approval
Date of Financial sanction
Amount of PE/DE
sanctioned with date
(` in crore)
Date of TS
Actual expenditure
incurred on dismantling
(` in crore)
10
11
Samajik Parivartan
Sthal
Library building and
plaza, colonnade, open
area theatre, obelisk,
administrative building,
external site
development, estate
museum building,
stadium
55.869
Smarak Sthal
Bauddh Vihar
Eco Garden
Office building,
manch, gates,
pedestals etc.
Parikalp Nagar,
Lucknow
Not available on
records
Not available on
records
38.72
Not available
Not available
Not available
0.61
Not available
Not available
No separate order.
No separate
order.
21 to 26
November 2008
21 November
200810
28 August to 30
November 2009
28 August 200911
22 April 2008
24 June 2009
Yet to be received
16 May 2008 and 17

September 2008
3.84
(27 March 2008)
12 February
2010
0.78
(15 May 2009)
Not sanctioned
Yet to be
received.
Not sanctioned
2 December 2009 and 14

March 2012.
31 July 2009
Not obtained
3.17
0.39
Not sanctioned
(28 April 2010)
1.08
Total
Adarsh Karagar,
District Jail and
Nari Bandi
Niketan,
Lucknow
94.58
0.61
PE of ` 12.49
crore sent but not
sanctioned
Not obtained
5.68
10.32
Library Building, Plaza, colonnade, open air theatre and obelisk `17.19 crore; Administrative building and external site
development ` 8.20 crore; Estate Museum and additional works ` 17.24 crore; Electrification works ` 13.24 crore
Office order No. 3258 dated 21November 2008 read with letter no. 3259/08-_ 9144- 08/BB of even date.
1625/22-4-09 48(70)/94BB5-dated 28 August 2009
87
Appendix-18
Statement showing deficiencies noticed in analysis of rates done by the EA
Particulars
Rates taken in
analysis of rates
50 per cent for
Mirzapur sandstone
work, 35 per cent for
Bansi Paharpur
sandstone work and
40.33 per cent for
Makrana marble
work.
Rates to be taken
Cost of establishment at Mirzapur, included in analysis of

rates for Mirzapur sandstone works, for sorting of material
from quarry and making of blocks as per required size was
not to be included as this was in the scope of work of stone
suppliers who were required to load the truck with required
size of stone.
Royalty rate were more than that prescribed by the
Government of Rajasthan
x Makrana marble
x Bansi Paharpur sandstone
` 20
Sandstone work (except

flooring and cladding) 33.33
per cent; Sandstone flooring
10.00 per cent, Sandstone
cladding 25 per cent plus 20
per centfor broken edge,
Marble work (except flooring)
20 per cent and Marble
flooring 15 per cent
Nil
` 500 per MT
` 140 per MT
` 400 per MT
` 95 per MT
Basic rate of 40 mm thick ivory fantasy granite slabs was

higher
Cost of thermocol which was not required/used in Mirzapur
sandstone and Bansi Paharpur sandstone works.
Calculation error in Jointing material in Makrana pink first
quality marble in cladding with stainless steel clamps
Conversion factor for calculation of freight of sandstone,
marble and granite was taken at higher rates than prescribed
which increased the freight charges.
x Sandstone
x Marble
x Granite
The freight charges are charged on the basis of actual weight
or volumetric weight12 whichever is higher. As stone is a high
density item its actual weight shall always be greater than its
volumetric weight and hence freight shall be payable on the
actual weight. The EA, however, doubled the freight charges
applicable for actual weight of the stone on the plea that
being packaged material the volumetric weight shall be twice
the actual weight. This resulted in excess consideration of
freight charges in the rates analysis.
Local cartage, charges for loading and unloading to
carving/key making workshop were included in the rate
analysis for Mirzapur sandstone flooring and cladding even
though these were not in the scope of work.
Different rates for local cartage (in Bayana, Rajasthan) were
considered for sandstone (` 100 per cft for Bansi Paharpur
sandstone work and ` 20 per cft for Mirzapur sandstone
work).
Freight from Bayana to Lucknow in case of Bansi Paharpur
sandstone work was taken as ` 700 per MT whereas in case
of Mirzapur sandstone works it was taken as ` 650 per MT.
Service tax was included despite the fact no service tax was
payable as the works were monuments.
` 345 per sq.ft
`117.10 per sq.ft.
Deficiencies which resulted in inflated analysed rates:

CPWD norms are available for wastage in sandstone and
marble works. However, the EA considered much higher
wastage percentage
Ranging from ` 25
to ` 50
` 400 per cft
Nil
` 150 per cft
Basis for rates to be

taken
CPWD analysis of
rates.
Quality of stone was

to be ensured by the
Directorate of Mining
as decided by the EA
in meeting dated 18
July 2007.
Notification dated 6
September 2007
issued by the
Government of
Rajasthan.
Excise duty invoice
of a Supplier.
Subsequent analysis
of EA.
Calculations of EA.
Notification dated 06
September 2007
issued by the
Government of
Rajasthan.
0.12/0.10 MT per cft

0.10 MT per cft
0.15/0.20 MT per cft
Double the freight
charge for actual
weight
0.068 MT per cft

0.077 MT per cft
0.085 MT per cft
Normal rate of freight
charges
` 20
Nil
Work not in scope.
` 100 per cft
` 20 per cft
Different rates
allowed for local
cartage
` 700 per MT
` 650 per MT
Different rates
allowed for freight
At the rate of 12.36

percent on services
Not applicable
Central Sales Tax (CST) in Bansi Pahapur sandstone,

Makrana marble and granite works was reduced to two per
cent w.e.f. 1 June 2008.
Three per cent
Two per cent
Clerical errors in totalling in analysis of rate of some items of

granite stone such as kerb stone, steps, boundary wall and
curved water body
` 1227, excluding its

cascading effect on
other elements of
cost
Actual total
Finance Act, 1994 as

amended from time
to time.
Notification no.
1/2008-CST-F.No.
28/11/2007-ST dated
30 May 2008.
Calculations of EA.
12
Concept of
volumetric weight
and actual weight of
stone.
The volumetric weight of a shipment is a calculation that reflects the density of a package. A less dense item generally
occupies more volume of space, in comparison to its actual weight. The volumetric weight is calculated and compared with
the actual weight of the shipment to ascertain which is greater; the higher weight is used to calculate the shipment cost.
88
Particulars
Deficiencies which resulted in deflated analysed rates:
Contractors profit was charged at the rate of eight per cent on
total cost including UP VAT whereas it should have been
charged at the rate of 10 per cent on material and labour cost
excluding VAT and VAT should have been charged
thereafter.
Water/electricity charges at the rate of one per cent were not
included
Interest on the amount of security to be deducted from the
bills of the contractors which was to be released after
completion of the defect liability period was not included.
Cost for clearing of malwa has not been included in our
analysis as it has been assumed that the same could have been
compensated from sale of stone dust/stone pieces recovered.
Rates taken in
analysis of rates
eight per cent on
total cost including
UP VAT
Rates to be taken
10 per cent on material and
labour cost excluding VAT
and VAT should have been
charged thereafter.
Nil
One per cent
Nil
Normal rate of interest

prevailing for similar period
as that of defect liability.
(compensatory in nature)
--
89
Basis for rates to be

taken
UPPWD norms and
UP VAT Act.
CPWD analysis of
rates.
Terms and conditions
of payment to
contractors.
--
Appendix-19
Statement showing rates approved by the EA vis--vis rates analysed by audit for various
items of stone works
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Particulars
Labour rate for Mirzapur sandstone

boundary wall (Carved)
boundary wall (Uncarved)
kerb stone
Labour rate for Mirzapur sandstone 50
mm flooring
cladding on retaining wall
boundary wall (Sharda canal)
Supply and fixing of Mirzapur
sandstone Boundary wall (Uncarved)
Supply and fixing of Boundary wall
(Carved)
sandstone in kerb stone
Supply and Fixing of Mirzapur sand
stone 50 mm flooring
Supply and Fixing of Mirzapur
sandstone offset pattern cladding on
retaining wall
Supply and fixing of Bansi Paharpur
sandstone in domes
sandstone in courtyard
sandstone in ceiling and beams
sandstone in thicker stones in cladding
in form of columns with carving
Supply and fixing of Makrana Pink first
quality marble in cladding duly carved
quality marble in normal flooring
quality marble in intricate pattern
flooring
Supply and fixing of Ivory Fantasy
granite in 40 mm circular flooring
Supply and fixing of Multi red granite
in 40 mm flooring
Supply and fixing of granite in steps
and kerb stone
Supply and fixing of granite stone in
boundary wall
curved water body of fountain
Date of
approval
15-Dec-08
Rates
approved by
EA
(in `)
1300
15-Dec-08
1050
cft
740
29.52
15-Dec-08
1250
cft
890
28.80
15-Dec-08
1750
sqm
1020
41.71
15-Dec-08
1200
cft
920
23.33
9-Jul-08
2190
cft
1480
32.42
15-Sep-09
1350
cft
890
34.07
10-Dec-09
1515
cft
1180
22.11
10-Dec-09
1200
cft
1040
13.33
15-Sep-09
1995
sqm
1400
29.82
17-Mar-09
2450
cft
1150
53.06
9-Jul-08
2700
cft
2110
21.85
8-Nov-07
2850
cft
2140
24.91
9-Jul-08
1900
cft
1400
26.32
15-Dec-08
3890
cft
3520
9.51
15-Dec-08
14950
cft
12550
16.05
15-Dec-08
13500
cft
10920
19.11
1-Aug-09
16300
cft
11950
26.69
12-Aug- 10
5450
cft
3030
44.40
12-Aug-10
5300
sqm
3030
42.83
15-Dec-08
5150
cft
2240
56.50
15-Dec-08
5050
cft
2330
53.86
15-Dec-08
7600
cft
4270
43.82
90
Unit
Variation in
per cent
cft
Rates as
analysed by
audit
(in `)
1030
20.77

boundary wall (Carved)

boundary wall (Uncarved)

kerb stone

50 mm flooring

cladding on retaining wall

Boundary wall (Sharda Canal)

sandstone Boundary wall (Uncarved)

sandstone Boundary wall (Carved)

sandstone kerb stone
Particulars
Sl.
No.
cft
1200
cft
cft
cft
1635
1200
cft
1700
cft
1515
cft
1600
1350
cft
cft
1290
2190
cft
sqm
1750
1400
sqm
2250
cft
1250
sqm
cft
1630
2400
cft
1750
cft
1050
cft
1300
cft
cft
1739
1199
cft
Unit
1890
Rate
awarded
by EA
1040
1040
1040
1180
1180
890
1480
920
920
920
1020
1020
1020
890
890
890
740
740
1030
1030
1030
Rates as
derived by
audit after
removal of
deficiencies in
analysis of EA
6740.29
105021.92
258684.80
2226.68
1340.26
83660.87
11437.34
29051.41
25064.50
37331.62
34872.11
40486.01
28833.02
48266.83
84889.05
11118.59
29101.46
57260.70
63413.76
246921.44
Total
quantity
executed
at
Lucknow
Projects at Lucknow
91
1078446.40
69314467.20
86659408.00
935205.60
616519.60
59399217.70
3202455.20
10749021.70
12030960.00
27252082.60
42892695.30
55870693.80
10379887.20
35717454.20
73004583.00
3446762.90
13357570.14
15460389.00
44960355.84
212352438.40
Excess
expenditure due
to award of
works at higher
rates
1250
1600
1700
1450
1200
1050
1300
Rate
awarded
by EA
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
cft
Unit
940
940
940
1080
790
640
930
10
Rates as derived
by audit after
removal of
deficiencies in
analysis of EA
4135.38
17114.77
5028.61
5667.70
1738.76
1353.98
206838.40
11
Total
quantity
executed
at NOIDA
Prerna Sthal at Noida
Statement showing excess expenditure incurred due to finalisation of higher rates
Appendix-20
1281967.80
11295748.20
3821743.60
2097049.00
712891.60
555131.80
76530208.00
Excess
expenditure
due to award
of works at
higher rates
(Amount in `)
2360414.20
11295748.20
73136210.80
86659408.00
3032254.60
1329411.20
59399217.70
3202455.20
10749021.70
12030960.00
27252082.60
42892695.30
55870693.80
10379887.20
35717454.20
73004583.00
4001894.70
13357570.14
15460389.00
44960355.84
288882646.40
13
Total excess
expenditure

sandstone offset pattern cladding on
retaining wall

sandstone in domes

sandstone in courtyard

sandstone in ceiling and beams of
corridor, chhatri

sandstone in thicker stone in
cladding in form of columns with
carving
Supply and fixing of Makrana Pink

first quality marble in cladding duly
carved

marble 50 mm thick in flooring

marble in flooring in intrecate
pattern

boundary wall
Supply and fixing of granite in 40

mm flooring
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

sandstone 50 mm flooring
10
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
6900
6500
5900
5850
5450
cft
5050
sqm
cft
5600
7600
cft
cft
16300
5490
cft
16500
cft
13500
cft
14950
cft
cft
14950
cft
16300
cft
16500
cft
3890
cft
1900
4150
cft
2050
cft
cft
2850
cft
2700
cft
2750
2450
sqm
1995
4
sqm
3
2100
3030
3030
3030
3030
3030
3030
2330
2330
2330
11950
11950
10920
10920
12550
12550
12550
3520
3520
1400
1400
2140
2110
2110
1150
1400
1400
8661.64
245066.30
3873.74
17853.94
24571.66
83258.40
1487.38
2129.77
5422.62
4893.68
522.10
942.47
1198.37
366.82
33812.62
15195.55
9312.04
81008.11
22976.62
18602.87
6504.41
14766.68
4057.68
8073.20
570.68
122530.61
92
20961168.80
691086966.00
11117633.80
61953171.80
95092324.20
380490888.00
4045673.60
6964347.90
17135479.20
21287508.00
2375555.00
2431572.60
4829431.10
880368.00
126797328.75
60022422.50
3445454.80
51035109.30
11488310.00
12091865.50
4618131.10
8712341.20
2596915.20
10495160.00
339554.60
85771427.00
sqm
cft
1450
5850
cft
sqm
sqm
1950
1500
1790
2000
10
3030
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
11
90760.97
10043.70
864.86
1729.38
1383.29
9116.74
255945935.40
4017480.00
778374.00
172938.00
539483.10
5470044.00
13
20961168.80
947032901.40
11117633.80
61953171.80
95092324.20
380490888.00
4045673.60
6964347.90
17135479.20
21287508.00
2375555.00
2431572.60
4829431.10
880368.00
126797328.75
60022422.50
3445454.80
51035109.30
11488310.00
12091865.50
4618131.10
8712341.20
2596915.20
4017480.00
11273534.00
172938.00
879037.70
91241471.00
Supply and fixing of granite in steps

and kerb stone

curved water body of fountain
22
23
Supply and fixing of granite in 40

mm flooring (multi red)
21
cft
cft
cft
7600
cft
5150
7750
cft
5500
7900
cft
5600
sqm
5300
4
sqm
3
5400
4270
4270
4270
2240
2240
2240
3030
3030
9745.40
8424.92
12498.94
131791.13
33535.04
44752.75
2426.03
46549.82
93
32452182.00
29318707.68
45371152.20
383512188.30
109324230.40
150369240.00
5507088.10
110323073.40
7600
5150
cft
cft
4270
2240
10
4741.46
88339.47
11
15789061.80
257067857.70
13
3979000497.81
48241243.80
29318707.68
45371152.20
640580046.00
109324230.40
150369240.00
5507088.10
110323073.40
Bansi Paharpur sandstone

work
(cft)
Mirzapur sandstone
boundary wall, Noida
(cft)
Mirzapur sandstone
boundary wall, Lucknow
(cft)
Granite Columns (cft)
Item of Work
Pink sand stone

Red sand stone
Uncarved Portion
Carved Portion
Uncarved Portion
Carved Portion
Column shaft made of Galaxy

white granite stone
Base made of Coffee brown
granite stone
Different features in
composite items
Rate of red sand

stone work same
as pink stone
work
(8 November
2007)
1300 (February
2008)
1890
(8 November
2007)
7730
(8 November
2007)
Initial rates
(Date)
94
7650
(9 July 2008)
Revised rates
(Date)
Composite rates
7100
(15 December 2008)
5150
(15 December 2008)
1739
( 9 July 2008)
1199
(9 July 2008)
1300
(March 2011)
1050
(March 2011)
2 per cent below the rate
of pink sand stone work
(15 December 2008)
Initial rates (Date)
1300
(15 December 2008)
1050
(15 December 2008)
Revised rates (Date)
Differentiated rates
Total
21732.13
183804.40
171785.04
2201.80
Quantity
executed at
composite rates
Statement showing excess expenditure due to non-differentiation in the rates of different features
Appendix-21
18.41
0.11
3.40
14.43
0.47
(` in crore)
Excess
expenditure
(1)
Earth work in excavation in foundation by mechanical means
including disposal of excavated earth upto 50 m and lift upto
1.5 m and disposal of earth
Supply and filling in plinth with fine sand under floors
including watering, ramming, consolidation and dressing
complete
Filling of earth suitable for filling including cost of earth in
shape as per profile compacted in layers and consolidated each
layer of 20 cm thickness at 95 per cent proctor density
P/L of RMC grade M-20
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink/red in 50 mm flooring
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink/red in solid kerb stone
Reinforcement for RCC work including straightening, cutting,
bending, placing in position and binding of TMT bars
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink jail
WMM as per UPPWD specifications
SS work of 316 grade in pipes and plates
P/F of solakunda granite in 19 mm flooring
P/F of ivory fantasy/solakunda granite in 40 mm flooring
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink/red in 50 mm thick dry cladding
P/F of Bansi Paharpur pink/red in domes/chhatri/elephant
features/chaitya type
P/F of toughened glass 12 mm
S/F of Mirzapur sandstone in 50 mm flooring
S/F of SS staircase and gates duly fabricated of 304 grade
S/F of Mirzapur sandstone in 75/100 mm thick cladding
Grassing
Particulars
(3)
310170
129576
1009067
7061
26581
631
44418
1750
833
1051
8433
82322
50561
118646
9074
1017
136
1283
259537
26
468800
35000
808500
13600
175000
3300
45500
850
3950
1100
510
31500
69650
7300
28000
650
500
10400
1400
100
Qty
(2)
38000
Qty as per
tender
95
Sqm
Sqm
kg
Cum
Sqm
Cum
Cum
kg
Sqm
Sqm
Sqm
Cum
Cum
Sqm
Cum
Cum
Cum
MT
Cum
Cum
(4)
Cum
Unit
7500
2000
510
60000
200
120000
2500
450
3735
6000
2800
120000
6000
2100
64000
6200
6400
40000
190
710
(5)
100
Rate
1020000
2566000
132363870
1560000
93760000
2988039895
126120000
21082500
37044900
188845335
711876000
25407200
122040000
42366000
55820100
40384000
275391600
11200000
33320000
191722730
91998960
(6)
31017000
Amount
25 August 2009
15 September 2009
10 August 2009
17 March 2009
18 August 2009
15 September 2009
15 September 2009
3 September 2009
18 August 2009
23 January-2010/1
August 2009
2 February 2010
10 February 2009
1 March 2009
1 September 2009
16 February 2009
15 September 2009
15 September 2009
1 August 2009
1 August 2009
(7)
1 August 2009
Date of approval
4250.2
1995
410
86509.5
135
103662
2200
366
3600
5850
1900
117405.75
5250
2042
63734.55
5500
5850
38756.5
187.9
658
Rate
approved by
EA
(8)
49
578027.2
2559585
106410170
2249247
63288000
108949167
18552600
30129852
182019600
694079100
17240600
119401647.8
37070250
54278402
40216501.05
244299000
10237500
32284164.5
189603689.3
85261008
30472000
183689001
441973
6415
25953700
17170833
2529900
6915048
6825735
17796900
8166600
2638352
5295750
1541698
167499
31092600
962500
1035835
2119041
6737952
(10)
15818670
Excess
expenditure
(Amount in `)
(9)
15198330
Amount
Statement showing extra expenditure incurred due payment to BPRIP at rates higher than approved by the EA
Appendix-22
Appendix-23
Statement showing excess expenditure due to non-execution of work at lower rates
Sl. No
1.
2.
3.
4.
Name of the Item
a. Providing and fixing Granite free standing

columns shaft (cum)
b. Providing and fixing Granite free standing
columns base (cum)
Providing and fixing Bronze gate (Kg)
Providing and laying of RMC Grade M-10
(cum)
Providing and fixing of Bansi Paharpur
sandstone in columns, mouldings and cornices
(cum)
Qty. executed by
other contractors
at EA rates
85.65
EA approved rates at
which payment made
(` per cum/Kg)
243639
Rates tendered
by BPRIP
(` per cum/Kg)
172000
Excess expenditure
(` in crore)
21.32
181847
200000
76790
11431.43
1089.60
4750
900
4400
1.46
0.40
159.96
82166
80000
0.03
Total
2.46
0.57
96
Appendix-24
Statement showing variations in the prices of a few plants
Sl.
No.
Rates of
Forest
Department
September
2008 to June
2009
February to
July 2011
February
2011
774
--
Per cent Hike

of minimum
rates over
the rates of
Forest
department
-
586
` 14
1150
200
` 14
1329
585
--
8 ft. to 10
ft.
February
2011
178
` 28
543
No. of
plants
purchased
1.
Bottle Palm
6619
`450
10 ft.
February
2008
` 3935
12 ft. to
15 ft.
2.
Peepal
589
`175
June 2009
` 1200
3.
Imli
916
` 200
8 ft. 10
ft.
4 ft. 6
ft.
` 600
4.
Thuja
(Morpankhi)
Maulsri
3229
` 270
` 1850
690
` 180
April to
September
2010
August
2009
November
2010
8 ft. 10
ft.
--
` 500
5.
Rates
Minimum Rates
Height
Period
Range in
per cent
Name of
the
plant/tree
3 ft. to 4
ft.
8 ft. to 10
ft.
Rates
97
Maximum rates
Height
Period
Appendix-25
Statement showing details of the committees formed for supervision and monitoring
Name of
Department
HUPD
Committee formed for

supervision & monitoring
Brief scope of work of

the committee
Committee formed (18 May

2007) under Chairmanship of
Principal Secretary, Housing
and Urban Planning
Supervision and review

of the projects
Committee
formed
(21
January
2010)
under
Chairmanship
of
ViceChairman, LDA
DoC
DoI
Work
Monitoring
and
Verification
Committee
(WMVC)
formed
(10
September
2007) under
Chairmanship of Nideshak,
Anveshnalay and Gunvatta
Niyantran Prakoshth.
Price
Determination
Committee (PDC) formed (6
November
2007)
under
Chairmanship of Nideshak,
Anveshnalay and Gunvatta
Niyantran Prakoshth.
Higher Authorities of the
Department
Deficiencies noticed in audit
We noticed that this Committee did not work at all.

HUPD stated (December 2013) that Committee regularly held weekly review
meetings at the site; minutes were not prepared, but instructions were issued
at the site to the concerned.
Ensuring quality of
higher
specification,
execution of works as
per sanctioned items
and
quality
of
construction work.
Selection of artefacts,
nature
of
statues,
construction material
and to ensure quality of
Art works
For price fixation of

artefacts etc.
The reply is not acceptable in the absence of written records of instructions

issued, as there can be no oral instructions regarding matters with huge
financial impact. There are also no records of compliance of the
instructions stated as having been issued.
We noticed that, in case of Eco Garden, the Committee confined itself to
examination of only test reports of materials submitted by EA. It never
monitored the work of Samajik Parivartan Sthal (except outside development
works done by LDA) and Smarak Sthal.
We noticed that this Committee had been functional but performed only
certain quality checks. The committee in its minutes recorded that it had been
giving instructions to the EA regarding site inspection; quality of stones;
quality of works and for price fixation but EA had not complied with and
done the work on their own. This clearly shows that there was no effective
monitoring and supervision, the non compliance of EA was never
highlighted in order to make EA comply despite there being a major
financial impact.
The PDC was not involved in the price fixation. It recorded (12 July 2011)
that it was not responsible for finalization of rates as it was done by the EA
itself.
This clearly shows that the PDC abdicated its responsibility.
Terms of reference not

specified
No committee was formed. The DoI stated (November 2013) that though
committee was not formed, higher authorities had monitored the works.
Reply is not convincing as records of supervision and monitoring done by
higher authorities were not made available to Audit except three inspection
notes.
98
Name of the
District
2
Banda
Chandauli
Muzaffar Nagar
Sonebhadra
Balrampur
Kushi Nagar
Basti
Saharanpur
Allahabad
Barabanki
Faizabad
Gorakhpur
Hameerpur
Jalaun
Kaushambi
Lakhimpur
Lalitpur
Lucknow
Mahoba
Mathura
Meerut
Total
Sl.
No.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3
12483663
243409
203000
11507200
5673134
--14554976
3733222
1073100
350600
312066
30736900
6166890
6961800
42300
88994
341030
-155400
198034
94825718
Sand
----------------22372
----22372
Morrum
----2261986
---22964216
-------2483924
-18676944
--46387070
Stone
grit
(Sand
stone)
---31292750
----1537000
------------32829750
Stone
Ballast
(sand
stone)
----------------2129850
----2129850
Boulder/
slab
(sand
stone)
Quantity in tones
99
----------------519247
----519247
Granite
(dimensional
stone)
---12129445
-----------------12129445
Coal
10
12483663
243409
203000
54929395
7935120
--14554976
28234438
1073100
350600
312066
30736900
6166890
6961800
42300
5244388
341030
18676944
155400
198034
188843453
Total
To be
recovered at
the rate of `
38 per ton
(Col. 10 x `
38)
11
4743.79
92.50
77.14
20873.16
3015.34
--5530.88
10729.09
407.77
133.23
118.59
11680.02
2343.41
2645.49
16.07
1992.87
129.59
7097.23
59.05
75.25
71760.47
--50.53
29.01
---776.31
----3246.35
696.97
0.11
2.29
110.73
-2871.36
--7783.66
12
Actually
recovered
13
4743.79
92.50
26.61
20844.15
3015.34
--4754.57
10729.09
407.77
133.23
118.59
8433.67
1646.44
2645.38
13.78
1882.14
129.59
4225.87
59.05
75.25
63976.81
Short
recovery
(Col. 11-Col.
12)
Transit fee (` in lakh)
Statement showing short recovery of transit fee during the period 2005-06 to 2007-08
(Referred to in paragraph 3.1)
Appendix-26
Appendix-27
Statement showing short levy of royalty on eucalyptus trees
Sl.
No.
Name of the
Division
Year
Diameter
of the
trees
(in cm)
No. of
trees
felled by
UPFC
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
DCF, Shivalik,
Saharanpur
2004-05
45-50
2005-06
45-50
2007-08
45-50
50-55
Sub Total
DFO,
Ambedkar
Nagar
Sub Total
DD, Barabanki
Sub Total
2008-09
45-50
2005-06
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
2006-07
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
2007-08
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
2008-09
45-50
50-55
2004-05
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
2005-06
45-50
2006-07
45-50
55-60
2007-08
45-50
2008-09
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
145
145
10
10
458
937
1395
116
116
1666
25
12
7
3
1
48
68
27
19
11
2
3
130
42
25
2
1
1
71
256
7
263
512
230
26
3
1
260
128
128
4
2
6
9
9
10
11
3
1
25
428
Volume of tree
As per norms
Actual
prescribed in December
volume
2008
taken by the
Department
Applicable
Volume
(in cum)
factor for
(in cum)
calculating
(5 x 6)
volume
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.2299
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
3.0170
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
1.2299
1.5242
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
1.2299
1.2299
1.8502
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
100
178.336
178.336
12.299
12.299
563.294
1428.175
1991.469
142.668
142.668
2324.772
30.748
18.290
12.951
6.623
2.597
71.209
83.633
41.153
35.154
24.284
5.193
9.051
198.468
51.656
38.105
3.700
2.208
2.597
98.266
314.854
10.669
325.523
693.466
282.877
39.629
5.551
2.208
330.265
157.427
157.427
4.920
3.700
8.620
11.069
11.069
12.299
16.766
5.551
2.208
36.824
544.205
140.215
140.215
9.670
9.670
442.886
906.079
1348.965
112.172
112.172
1611.022
23.530
11.604
6.769
2.900
0.967
45.771
65.756
26.109
18.373
10.637
1.934
2.901
125.709
40.614
24.175
1.934
0.967
0.967
68.657
247.552
6.769
254.321
494.458
222.410
25.142
2.901
0.967
251.420
125.226
125.226
4.593
2.659
7.252
9.428
9.428
9.670
10.637
2.901
0.967
24.175
417.501
Difference
in volume
(in cum)
(7-8)
(9)
38.121
38.121
2.629
2.629
120.408
522.096
642.504
30.496
30.496
713.750
7.218
6.686
6.182
3.723
1.630
25.438
17.877
15.044
16.781
13.647
3.259
6.150
72.759
11.042
13.930
1.766
1.241
1.630
29.609
67.302
3.900
71.202
199.008
60.467
14.487
2.650
1.241
78.845
32.201
32.201
0.327
1.041
1.368
1.641
1.641
2.629
6.129
2.650
1.241
12.649
126.704
Prevailing
rate of
royalty
(`/cum)
Short
levy of
royalty
(in `)
(9 x 10)
(10)
(11)
827
868
1161
1161
1326
838
838
838
838
838
930
930
930
930
930
930
1135
1135
1135
1135
1135
1336
1336
749
749
749
749
838
930
930
1135
1336
1336
1336
1336
31526
31526
2282
2282
139794
606153
745947
40438
40438
820193
6048
5603
5181
3120
1366
21318
16626
13991
15606
12692
3031
5719
67665
12533
15811
2004
1409
1850
33607
89916
5210
95126
217716
45290
10851
1985
930
59056
26984
26984
304
968
1272
1863
1863
3512
8188
3540
1658
16898
106073
(1)
(2)
DD, Sultanpur
Sub Total
DD Basti
Sub Total
DFO, Social
Forestry,
Deoria
Sub Total
Grand Total
(3)
(4)
2004-05
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
2005-06
45-50
2006-07
45-50
2008-09
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
2004-05
45-50
50-55
2005-06
45-50
2006-07
45-50
50-55
2007-08
45-50
50-55
2008-09
45-50
2006-07
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
2007-08
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
2008-09
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
(5)
1448
246
202
33
6
5
1940
46
46
229
229
688
138
161
30
14
6
2
1
1040
3255
43
2
45
51
51
1
22
23
142
2
144
13
13
276
125
48
17
2
3
195
217
49
22
4
1
293
9
4
7
1
21
(6)
(7)
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
3.0170
1.2299
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
3.0170
3.4693
3.9529
1.2299
1.5242
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.2299
1.5242
1.2299
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
2.5966
1.2299
1.5242
1.8502
2.2076
509
6646
101
(8)
(9)
1780.895
374.953
373.740
72.851
15.580
15.085
2633.104
56.575
56.575
281.647
281.647
846.171
210.340
297.882
66.228
36.352
18.102
6.939
3.953
1485.967
4457.293
52.886
3.048
55.934
62.725
62.725
1.230
33.532
34.762
174.646
3.048
177.694
15.989
15.989
347.104
153.738
73.162
31.453
4.415
7.790
270.558
266.888
74.686
40.704
8.830
2.597
393.705
11.069
6.097
12.951
2.208
32.325
1400.216
237.882
195.334
31.911
5.802
4.835
1875.980
44.482
44.482
221.443
221.443
658.849
132.963
153.510
29.010
13.538
5.802
1.934
0.967
996.573
3138.478
41.580
1.935
43.515
49.317
49.317
0.967
21.274
22.241
137.314
1.934
139.248
6.290
6.290
260.611
120.875
46.416
16.439
1.934
2.901
188.565
209.839
47.383
21.274
3.868
0.967
283.331
8.703
3.868
6.769
0.967
20.307
380.679
137.071
178.406
40.940
9.778
10.250
757.124
12.093
12.093
60.204
60.204
187.322
77.377
144.372
37.218
22.814
12.300
5.005
2.986
489.394
1318.815
11.306
1.113
12.419
13.408
13.408
0.263
12.258
12.521
37.332
1.114
38.446
9.699
9.699
86.493
32.863
26.746
15.014
2.481
4.889
81.993
57.049
27.303
19.430
4.962
1.630
110.374
2.366
2.229
6.182
1.241
12.018
696.588
9063.428
492.203
6414.273
204.385
2649.155
(10)
(11)
749
749
749
749
749
749
838
930
1336
1336
1336
1336
1336
1336
1336
1336
749
749
838
930
930
1135
1135
1336
930
930
930
930
930
1135
1135
1135
1135
1135
1336
1336
1336
1336
285129
102666
133626
30664
7324
7677
567086
10134
10134
55990
55990
250262
103376
192881
49723
30480
16433
6687
3989
653831
1287041
8468
834
9302
11236
11236
245
11400
11645
42372
1264
43636
12958
12958
88777
30563
24874
13963
2307
4547
76254
64751
30989
22053
5632
1850
125275
3161
2978
8259
1658
16056
217585
2737385
Appendix-28
Statement showing short deduction of Cess
Sl. No.
Name of the work
Agreement no.
and Date
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Construction of 384
697/FC/EE-I/09
houses at Madhuban
dated 15.05.2009
Bapudham Yojna
2.
Construction of 384
648/FC/EE-I/09
houses at Madhuban
dated 04.06.2009
Bapudham Yojna
3.
Construction of 384
694/FC/EE-I/09
houses at Madhuban
dated 12.05.2009
Bapudham Yojna
4.
Construction of 384
647/FC/EE-I/09
houses at Madhuban
dated 20.04.2009
Bapudham Yojna
5.
Development works at
994/FC/EE-I/10
Sector-B, Madhuban
dated 22.06.2010
Bapudham Yojna
6.
Laying of trunk and
1029/FC/WS/10
sewer line at Noor
dated 04.08.2010
Nagar
7.
Construction of 56 mld 570/FC/WS/09
sewage treatment plant dated 21.03.2009
at Dudahera
8.
Construction of 56 mld 581/FC/WS/09
sewage treatment plant dated 26.03.2009
at Indirapuram
9.
Construction of 56 mld 557/FC/EE/WS/0
sewage treatment plant 9 dated
at Govindpuram
20.3.2009
10.
Construction of 56 mld 795/FC/EE/WS/0
sewage treatment plant 9 dated
at Bapudham
15.12.2009
Name of the
contractor
Amount paid
(in `)
(4)
(5)
(Amount in `)
Cess deducted
Cess short
deducted
(Col.6 Col. 7)
(7)
(8)
Naresh Agrawal
Engineering
Pvt. Ltd.
Raj Kumar
Tyagi
122174727.00
1221747.27
--
1221747.27
121236436.00
1212364.36
--
1212364.36
Ashok Kumar
& Co.
124980392.00
1249803.92
--
1249803.92
Raj Kumar
Tyagi
121294138.00
1212941.38
--
1212941.38
Vibhor Vaibhav
Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd.
N.K.G.
Infrastructure
Ltd.
N.K.G.
Infrastructure
Ltd.
Ultratech
345450369.00
3454503.69
--
3454503.69
100954869.00
1009548.69
--
1009548.69
603035066.00
6030350.66
--
6030350.66
624460947.00
6244609.47
--
6244609.47
Vibhor Vaibhav
Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd.
Vibhor Vaibhav
Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd.
567526379.00
5675263.79
--
5675263.79
548022496.00
5480224.96
--
5480224.96
3279135819.00
32791358.19
--
32791358.19
Total
Kanpur Development Authority
1.
Development works at
Pocket-G, Highway
City Awasiya Yojna
2.
Construction of sewer
drain on 24m wide
road at Highway City
Yojna
3.
Strengthening of
Jhansi road from
Kalyanpur railway
crossing to Panki
4.
Strengthening of
Jhansi road from
Kalyanpur railway
crossing to Panki
(Part-D)
5.
Construction of rising
main and pump house
at Idgah park
Cess to be
deducted
Col. 5 x 1 per
cent
(6)
D-473/v0v0(3B)/
08-09 dated
18.03.2009
D-112/v0v0 5/dk0fo0k0/10-11
dated 08.04.2010
Aryash
Buildcon
15250252.36
152502.52
152556.00
--
Krishna
Infrastructure
14311831.66
143118.32
143118.00
--
36/v0v0-2/08-09
dated 26.02.2009
V.S. Buildcon
38063570.53
380635.71
--
380635.71
37/v0v0-2/08-09
dated 26.02.2009
V.S.Buildcon
30190687.04
301906.87
--
301906.87
D/108/ v0v0 (1)/

dk0fo0k0/10-11
dated 04.06.2010
Total
Royal and Co.
3382319.01
33823.19
33824.00
--
101198660.60
1011986.61
329498.00
682542.58
102
Glossary of abbreviations
Abbreviation
ADA
APO
Bauddh Vihar
BOQ
BPRIP
C&AG
CAF
CAMPA
CPWD
CVC
DA
DD
DE
DFO
DMO
DoC
DoI
DPC Act
DPR
DSR
EA
EC
Eco Garden
EDC
EFC
EIA
EPPL
GDA
GoI
GoUP
HLC
HUPD
IIDD
IR
IRR
JIL
JMSC
JVC
KDA
LDA
LoI
LSI
MHLC
MIPPL
MNREGA
MoEF
NEDA
Expanded form
Agra Development Authority
Annual Plan of Operations
Bauddh Vihar Shanti Upvan and Eco Park, Lucknow
Bill of Quantity
BPR Infrastructure and Parmitha (Joint venture), Hyderabad
Compensatory Afforestation Fund
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning
Authority
Central Public Works Department
Central Vigilance Commission
Development Authority
Divisional Director
Detailed Estimate
Divisional Forest Officer
District Mining Officer
Department of Culture
Department of Irrigation
Comptroller and Auditor Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions
of Service) Act, 1971
Detailed Project Report
Delhi Schedule of Rates
Executing Agency
Environmental Clearance
Manyavar Shri Kanshiram Ji Green (Eco) Garden, Lucknow
Economic Development Committee
Expenditure Finance Committee
Environmental Impact Assessment
Edison Projects (P) Limited
Government of India
Government of Uttar Pradesh
High Level Committee
Inspection Report
Internal Rate of Return
Jaiprakash Industries Limited, New Delhi
Joint Market Survey Committee
Joint Venture Company
Kanpur Development Authority
Lucknow Development Authority
Letter of Intent
Light Sound Image System (I) Private Limited
Monitoring High Level Committee
Maglink Infra Projects (P) Limited
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Non-conventional Energy Development Agency
103
NHAI
NHDP
NOC
NOIDA
NPV
PCCF
PDC
PE
PFAD
PPP
Prerna Sthal
PWD
RCC
RMC
ROE
RSFAL
SEIAA
Smarak Sthal
SOR
SPV
SSPUPSAS
State CAMPA
TC
TEA
TEFR
UC
UP State CAMPA
UPFC
UPPCB
UPPWD
UPRNN
WMVC
YEIDA

National Highways Development Programme
No Objection Certificate
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Net Present Value
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Price Determination Committee
Preliminary Estimate
Project Formulation and Appraisal Division
Public Private Partnership
Rashtriya Dalit Prerna Sthal and Green Garden, NOIDA
Public Works Department
Reinforced Cement Concrete
Ready Mix Concrete
Return on Equity
Ram Sutar Fine Arts Private Limited
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Lucknow
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Manyavar Shri Kanshiram Ji Smarak Sthal, Lucknow
Schedule of Rates
Special Purpose Vehicle
Smarkon, Sangrahalayon, Sansthano, Parkon Va Upvano Aadi Ki
Prabandhan Suraksha Evam Anurakshan Samiti
State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning
Authority
Technical Committee
Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority
Techno-Economic Feasibility Report
Utilisation Certificate
Uttar Pradesh Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority
Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Contral Board
Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited
Work Monitoring and Verification Committee
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
104
,
-+.-//!
0
0.-
!!/
-1
0
222" ''
222 '"

Uttar Pradesh 4 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uttar Pradesh 4 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



Government of Uttar Pradesh

22,615.92 1,01,269.25 1,23,885.17

25,877.91 1,14,845.73 1,40,723.64

43,765.50 1,10,956.81 1,54,722.31

48,870.17 1,25,600.04 1,74,470.21

--- 1,17,472.99 1,17,472.99

--- 1,30,970.76 1,30,970.76

41,237.89 2,12,574.71 2,53,812.60

43,765.50 2,42,237.21 2,86,002.71

48,870.17 2,55.334.00 3,04,204.17

1.3 Authority for audit

1.6 Recoveries at the instance of Audit

Lack of due diligence in relinquishment of equity on the part of

Responsiveness of Government to Audit

1.8.1 Lack of response to the draft performance audit reports and

Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit), Uttar Pradesh. As

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

principle in which usually the conditions relating to transfer, mutation and

The State CAMPAs function through a three-tier committee hierarchy

whether measures taken for conservation, afforestation and preservation of

whether the collection, utilisation, monitoring, accounting and

Various Guidelines and orders issued by the GoI as per directives of

Scope of Audit and Audit Methodology

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

State CAMPA/Government have been duly considered while finalising the

No. 498 dated 19 February 2013.

Forest land measuring 368.10 hectare was used by Irrigation Department

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

While accepting the audit observation the UP State CAMPA stated

39 Forest Divisions out of 79 Forest Divisions.

Non-reconciliation of funds transferred by UP State CAMPA to Ad-hoc

The Divisions of the Forest Department remitted ` 109.45 crore, collected

The UP State CAMPA remitted ` 130.47 crore, collected from 41 user

No reasons for delay in remission of funds were furnished.

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

Operations (APOs) approved by the Steering Committee of the State CAMPA.

Six in number in respect of cases test checked in audit.

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

The UP State CAMPA while confirming the audit observation stated

Three Forest Divisions23 recovered (March 2006 to April 2008) excess

Utilisation of Compensatory Afforestation Funds

(Source: Information furnished by UP State CAMPA)

Bahraich, Najibabad and Barabanki.

Funding of Annual Plan of Operations

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

As against six meetings required to be held.

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

Equivalent non-forest land is received in all eligible cases of diversion

Forest land is not diverted for non-forest purposes without prior

The amount of compensatory afforestation and net present value is

Funds collected from user agencies are remitted to the Ad-hoc

Proper monitoring and evaluation system is evolved to implement the

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

2.2 Review of Construction of Memorials

Please refer to Sl. No. 5 of Table 2.2.

Chapter-II: Performance Audit

Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) had also sanctioned construction

Main Bauddh Vihar

Main Eco Park,

Central Park Plaza,

(Source: Compiled from the records of Departments and Executing agency)

Budget for the projects of Memorials